Opinion ID: 891652
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of Leg Shackles During Trial

Text: {23} Defendant was in leg irons for the duration of the trial. The record does not contain the reason behind this security measure. Defendant requested that the leg irons be removed if he were to testify. Citing safety concerns and recent violent incidents in other states involving unsecured defendants, the district court said it would not override the detention center and remove Defendant's leg irons if he were to testify. Defendant did not testify. In addition, five security guards were present in the courtroom during the trial, although the reason for their presence is not in the record. Defendant did not object either to the presence of the security officers or the use of leg irons, other than to request the shackles be removed were Defendant to testify. {24} Defendant now argues that the use of leg irons during trial violated his due process rights under the United States and New Mexico Constitutions, as well as his right to a fair and impartial jury and a presumption of innocence under the New Mexico Constitution. Defendant does not argue that the presence of the security officers violated his rights, but does acknowledge that some level of security was necessary during trial in stating that either the use of shackles or the presence of the guards would be sufficient to guarantee any safety issues related to the trial, but not both.
{25} Defendant did not object to the use of leg irons during the trial. As it was not preserved, we review this issue for fundamental error. State v. Holly, 2009-NMSC-004, ¶ 40, 145 N.M. 513, 201 P.3d 844. Error that is fundamental must be such error as goes to the foundation or basis of a defendant's rights or must go to the foundation of the case or take from the defendant a right which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive. Fundamental error only applies in exceptional circumstances when guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the judicial conscience to allow the conviction to stand. State v. Gallegos, 2009-NMSC-017, ¶ 27, 146 N.M. 88, 206 P.3d 993 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
{26} The United States Supreme Court concluded that visible shackling is inherently prejudicial, Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 635, 125 S.Ct. 2007, 161 L.Ed.2d 953 (2005), and stated that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the use of physical restraints visible to the jury absent a trial court determination, in the exercise of its discretion, that they are justified by a state interest specific to a particular trial[,] including security concerns. Id. at 629, 125 S.Ct. 2007. The important principles behind this rule are: (1) the presumption of innocence, id. at 630, 125 S.Ct. 2007 (Visible shackling undermines the presumption of innocence and the related fairness of the factfinding process.); (2) the right to counsel, id. at 631, 125 S.Ct. 2007 (stating that shackles can interfere with a defendant's ability to participate in his own defense, say, by freely choosing whether to take the witness stand on his own behalf); and (3) the dignity of the judicial process. Id. ([T]he use of shackles at trial affronts the dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold. (internal quotation marks and modifications omitted)). State interests may outweigh these individual rights, but a court must make this determination after a review of each case's circumstances. Id. at 632, 125 S.Ct. 2007. {27} In Deck, the Court found that the defendant was prejudiced by visible shackling during the sentencing phase of his trial. The record was clear that the jury knew the defendant was shackled, id. at 634, 125 S.Ct. 2007, and the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the inherently prejudicial shackling did not contribute to the guilty verdict. Id. at 635, 125 S.Ct. 2007. {28} In contrast, where a defendant is restrained in a manner not visible to the jury, prejudice is not presumed. In United States v. Wardell, 591 F.3d 1279, 1294 (10th Cir.2009), the Tenth Circuit refused to presume prejudice when a defendant was required to wear a stun belt that was not visible to the jury. Similarly, in Holly, we found no fundamental error when a single juror may have viewed the defendant in handcuffs and defense counsel raised the issue to the judge but did not request a mistrial, removal of the juror, or a finding of prejudice. 2009-NMSC-004, ¶¶ 40-41, 145 N.M. 513, 201 P.3d 844. {29} In this case, the district court did not commit fundamental error by keeping Defendant in shackles for the duration of the trial. There is no indication the jury saw the leg irons, and thus the factors tending to show prejudice are not present. See id. ¶¶ 40-42. As the jury was not aware of Defendant's restraint, Defendant's presumption of innocence was not violated. See State v. Sluder, 82 N.M. 755, 756-57, 487 P.2d 183, 184-85 (Ct.App.1971). For the same reason, the dignity of the judicial process was not affected. See Deck, 544 U.S. at 630, 125 S.Ct. 2007. Defendant's right to counsel was not violated, as the record does not reveal that Defendant's decision not to testify was a result of the district court's determination that Defendant posed too great a security risk to be unshackled rather than Defendant's own free choice not to testify. See id. at 631, 125 S.Ct. 2007. While the record seems to indicate the decision to shackle Defendant was the Department of Corrections and not the district courts, [2] the district court considered Defendant to pose a safety threat and stated it would not remove the leg irons. We do note, however, that this procedure is rarely justified. See id. at 628, 125 S.Ct. 2007 (counseling that shackling should be permitted only where justified by an essential state interest specific to each trial (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). In the future, the district court and the parties should ensure the record reflects the reasons behind security measures undertaken during trial and the ways in which the defendant's constitutional rights are protected or the state interests that outweigh the defendant's individual rights.