Opinion ID: 1439456
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stun Belt

Text: Honken argues the use of a stun belt interfered with his right to communicate with counsel and participate in his own defense. In support of his argument, Honken cites an Eleventh Circuit case which explains, although stun belts are not visible to the jury and are therefore unlikely to interfere with the presumption of innocence, the constant anxiety over the possible triggering of the belt interferes with a defendant's ability to follow the proceedings and participate fully in his defense. United States v. Durham, 287 F.3d 1297, 1306 (11th Cir.2002). Honken also contends, because he was shackled and bolted to the floor, he wasn't going anywhere, and the use of the stun belt constituted impermissible piling on. The district court agreed the use of a stun belt should be subjected to close judicial scrutiny, because of its potentially disruptive effect on the defendant's rights and the fairness of the factfinding process. Honken, 378 F.Supp.2d at 1037 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The district court then determined the use of a stun belt is justified by the same essential governmental interests that justify use of shackles. Id. The district court also determined, given Honken's extreme dangerousness, that multiple restraints were justified in case one method failed, reasoning the use of shackles and a stun belt together provides an appropriate level of mutually reinforcing deterrence and protection that is justified by the essential governmental interests in safety of the courtroom and prevention of escape and does so without additional prejudice. Id. at 1038. The district court explained using shackles and bolting the shackles to the floor provides a reliable `back-up' in the unlikely event the stun belt would fail, while at the same time lessening the likelihood the stun belt would ever have to be discharged. Id. Considering Honken's dangerousness, martial arts training, and compelling desire to escape, we conclude the district court did not abuse its reasoned discretion in ordering Honken to be shackled, bolted to the floor, and forced to wear a stun belt during trial.