Opinion ID: 1228032
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Restraint of Defense Witness

Text: (9a) As explained above, Folsom Prison inmate John Frazier was called as a witness for the defense. After a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine whether Frazier should be restrained while testifying, and over the strenous objection of defense counsel, Frazier was restrained during his testimony by a nylon strap, approximately one-half inch wide, placed around his ankles and secured to the legs of his chair. He was seated in the witness chair and the restraints were applied before the jury was brought into the courtroom; following his testimony the court called a recess so that the restraints could be removed out of the jury's presence. Defendant claims the court erred in ordering Frazier be restrained during his testimony. (10a) [A] defendant cannot be subjected to physical restraints of any kind in the courtroom while in the jury's presence, unless there is a showing of manifest need for such restraints. ( People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282, 290-291 [127 Cal. Rptr. 618, 545 P.2d 1322, 90 A.L.R.3d 1], fn. and citations omitted.) When this manifest need appears on the record, the court is vested with discretion to order the physical restraint most suitable for a particular defendant under the circumstances. ( Id., at p. 291.) Nevertheless, [t]he imposition of physical restraints in the absence of a record showing of violence or a threat of violence or other nonconforming conduct will be deemed to constitute an abuse of discretion. ( Ibid. ) These rules apply to defense witnesses as well as defendants. ( Id., at p. 288, fn. 4.) [19] (9b) At the hearing held before Frazier testified, the prosecution presented numerous documents to support its claim that restraints were necessary. The first of these documents is a 14-page report of the California Board of Prison Terms prepared in connection with a parole consideration hearing. It details the bizarre circumstances surrounding the five murders for which Frazier was convicted, [20] and summarizes the findings of a number of psychiatric evaluations. The most recent psychiatric evaluation had been conducted eight months previously, at which time the examining psychiatrist diagnosed Frazier as having a paranoid personality disorder with antisocial behavior manifestation, and noted that the prognosis would be guarded regarding his adjustment in the free community at this time. In an earlier evaluation, conducted in March 1971, the examining psychiatrist reported a diagnosis of schizophrenia, paranoid type with antisocial behavior; noted that Frazier's behavior must be considered unpredictable; and observed that in the outside community setting, the behavioral prognosis appears extremely poor and it seems rather obvious that he would constitute an exceedingly high risk in an uncontrolled setting. The other documents relied on by the prosecution include a report listing Frazier's disciplinary violations while in prison; correspondences between Frazier and prison officials regarding a number of the disciplinary violations; and a series of memoranda from prison officials explaining to Frazier why he would not be allowed to receive various martial arts publications sent to him in prison. From the disciplinary report and related correspondences, it appears Frazier committed 13 disciplinary violations over 10 1/2 years. The most recent violation, and apparently the one officials considered the most serious, involved spitting in a prison guard's face and allegedly threatening to get the guard and to hit a cop. Frazier denied making the threats and maintained he spit at the guard only after the guard hit and spit on him. In addition to these documents, the prosecutor recounted a recent phone conversation he had with Dr. Fort  a psychiatrist who apparently was involved in Frazier's murder prosecution. Dr. Fort told the prosecutor that when he had last examined Frazier three years earlier, Frazier was a paranoid schizophrenic, psychotic. According to the prosecutor, in Dr. Fort's opinion Frazier was extremely dangerous, very resentful of authority figures, and quite probably would fly off the handle if challenged in court by an authority figure; therefore, Dr. Fort recommended some form of restraint be used on Frazier. Based on the information provided by the prosecution, the court ordered that Frazier be restrained during his testimony. The court stated that if we were dealing with a person who was stable, who I felt was stable, I wouldn't consider shackling for a moment. The court stated, however, it believed Frazier was a dangerously unbalanced individual who, as a paranoid schizophrenic, might well become agitated under the stress of cross-examination. The court observed Frazier had committed five murders under bizarre circumstances and expressed concern over Frazier's apparent expertise in martial arts. The court also noted the sheriff's office had indicated, through the Attorney General, it believed Frazier was very dangerous. In ordering Frazier restrained, the court stated it was concerned not only for the safety of those in the courtroom but also about the effect a violent outburst might have on defendant's right to a fair trial. (10b) As we stated in Duran, when the court's determination is made in accordance with the guidelines established in that opinion the court's decision cannot be successfully challenged on review except on a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion. (16 Cal.3d at p. 293, fn. 12.) (9c) The trial court here conducted a special hearing to determine the need for restraints, carefully considered the arguments of both counsel, and explained in some detail on the record its reasons for ordering restraints. Furthermore, the restraints used were minimally obtrusive [21] and were placed around, and removed from, Frazier's ankles outside the jury's presence. The Courts of Appeal have generally read Duran as holding that it is the defendant's conduct in custody, now or at other times, or his expressed intention to escape or engage in nonconforming conduct during the trial that should be considered in determining whether there is a `manifest need' for shackles. ( People v. Jacla (1978) 77 Cal. App.3d 878, 884 [144 Cal. Rptr. 23], citations omitted; see also People v. Valenzuela (1984) 151 Cal. App.3d 180, 192-193 [198 Cal. Rptr. 469], and cases cited therein.) With the exception of the disciplinary report  not expressly relied on by the trial court  none of the evidence presented by the prosecution relates to Frazier's present or past conduct in custody or in the courtroom, and most of the evidence seems of limited value in predicting Frazier's future conduct in the courtroom. On the other hand, it is questionable whether these factors should be controlling when, as the record shows here, the court's finding of manifest need is based primarily on its belief that because of the witness's psychological instability, his conduct is inherently unpredictable. [22] Considering the evidence as a whole, the careful consideration given to the evidence by the trial court, and the unobtrusiveness of the restraints used, we conclude there was no manifest abuse of discretion in this case. In any event, any error was clearly harmless. As already noted, a recess was taken before and after Frazier's testimony so the jury would not see the restraints being placed on him or being removed. Indeed, there is no evidence that any of the jurors actually saw the restraints. (See, e.g., People v. Valenzuela, supra, 151 Cal. App.3d at p. 196; People v. Zatko (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 534, 551 [145 Cal. Rptr. 643].) [23] Furthermore, contrary to defendant's contention, Frazier was not a key defense witness whose testimony was very crucial evidence to [defendant's] case. Defendant claims Frazier's testimony was crucial because it directly contravened the testimony of a prosecution witness, Joe Rainier ... [who] testified that Rainier, Billy Ray Hamilton and [defendant] had met together on many ... occasions. Rainier, however, did not testify he had met with defendant and Hamilton many times. In fact, he testified that defendant and Hamilton excluded him from most of their conversations and that on the very few occasions when the three of them talked together, the conversation lasted for only a short time because Hamilton always left shortly after Rainier approached. Furthermore, nothing in Frazier's testimony conflicts with Rainier's testimony concerning Rainier's meetings with defendant and Hamilton. Indeed, Frazier was never asked and never testified about whether he had seen Rainier, defendant and Hamilton together at Folsom. [24] Finally, we note Frazier was a defense witness  not a defendant. (10c) As we stated in Duran, although the limitation on physical restraints applies to defense witnesses as well as defendants, the prejudicial effect of shackling defense witnesses is less consequential since `the shackled witness ... [does] not directly affect the presumption of innocence.' (16 Cal.3d at p. 288, fn. 4, italics added.) (9d), (11a) (See fn. 25.) For these reasons, we conclude that any error in restraining Frazier during his testimony was harmless. [25]