Opinion ID: 149141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Imposition of Physical Restraints

Text: Following jury selection, the District Court held an informal conference in chambers and raised the possibility that Sides would be physically restrained i.e., appear in leg irons and handcuffsduring trial. Sides' counsel objected to the imposition of any physical restraints, and arguedciting precedent from another circuit courtthat the District Court should employ a balancing test to determine whether physical restraints were warranted in terms of [the] interest of the plaintiff and the need[ ] to have him in handcuffs. Counsel also urged the Court not just ... [to] defer to any type of Department of Corrections policies on the issue. In response, defendants' counsel noted that he did not represent the Department of Corrections, and thus could not really give ... guidance to the Court on the issue. When the Judge asked whether counsel would make some calls to see if somebody could come up and represent the Department of Corrections, counsel responded that Sides was considered very high risk, had been a very assaultive inmate[,] and [was] currently in a special needs unit at SCI Greene. Though defendants' counsel stated that he would be willing to proffer testimony on the issue, he argued that, in light of Sides' track record of ... misconduct[ ] and violence, it would be appropriate to have him handcuffed and shackled and certainly [placed] under guard. The Judge then informed the parties that he had spoken with a United States Deputy Marshal that morning regarding the issue: I was told by [the] Deputy Marshal ... [,] who is in charge of security for the Courts, that Mr. Sides is a category five security risk[,] which is the highest category of security risk the Department of Justice has or Department of Corrections has. That he is in a special needs unit at the prison. That if ordered, I could have the shackles removed; however, he recommended against it. I asked him what could be done to minimize this and he ha[s] agreed to place some type of a curtain at the desk so that the shackles would not be obvious throughout the trial. We've agreed that when he is called to testify, we will take himwe'll take the jury out of the room, put him in the witness box. I mean, the guards will take the shackles off. The marshal will put extra people in the courtroom while he testifies. Accepting the Court's ruling, Sides' counsel raised the additional concern that, if corrections officers sat directly behind Sides during trial, anything he want[ed] to discuss with [counsel] ha[d] the potential of being heard by the officers. The Court acknowledged that this is an obvious prejudicial issue, but suggest[ed] [that they] whisper. The District Judge put in place preventive measures during trial to mitigate the prejudice to Sides of appearing in shackles. Those measures were: a jacket be placed over Sides' hands and wrists to hide the handcuffs while he sat at the plaintiff's table; a paper apron be wrapped around the plaintiff's table to obscure Sides' leg irons; and Sides would not testify wearing either the handcuffs or leg irons. Because the apron did not reach the bottom of the floor, boxes were placed underneath the table to obscure completely the leg irons (though no similar measures were taken with respect to the defendants' table). In addition, the Judge addressed the fact that Sides would be physically restrained during trial in his preliminary instructions to the jury.