Opinion ID: 867236
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Case specific determination

Text: ¶ 25 Before authorizing visible restraints, the trial court must make a case specific determination reflecting particular concerns, say, special security needs or escape risks, related to the defendant on trial. Deck, 544 U.S. at 633, 125 S.Ct. 2007. A decision based solely on a general jail policy of shackling defendants who wear jail garb or exercise their constitutional right to represent themselves is clearly not the kind of `case specific' determination of `particular concerns' that Deck requires. State v. Gomez, 211 Ariz. 494, 504, ¶ 49, 123 P.3d 1131, 1141 (2005) (footnote omitted). A trial judge must have grounds for ordering restraints and should not simply defer to the prosecutor's request, a sheriff's department's policy, or security personnel's preference for the use of restraints. Rather, the judge should schedule a hearing at the defendant's request regarding the need for the restraints. State v. Cruz, 218 Ariz. 149, 168, ¶ 119, 181 P.3d 196, 215 (2008). ¶ 26 The trial judge here cited only jail policy and made no particularized finding of the need for security measures. We reiterate that judges should not simply defer to jail policy in ordering restraints of defendants. Rather, they should determine on a case-by-case basis whether security measures are required as to the particular defendant before them. ¶ 27 Deck, however, requires reversal only if restraints are visible to the jury. Deck, 544 U.S. at 633, 125 S.Ct. 2007; Gomez, 211 Ariz. at 504, ¶ 50, 123 P.3d at 1141; see also Mills, 196 Ariz. at 272-73, ¶ 13, 995 P.2d at 708-09 (observing that an unseen restraint could not have affected the presumption of innocence (internal quotation marks omitted)). The central issue here is thus whether the restraints were visible.