Opinion ID: 1940200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Court's Decision to Allow Use of a Stun Belt

Text: Weaver next argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to fit him with a stun belt. The trial court determined that courtroom safety justified the use of a stun belt and required Weaver to wear one throughout the proceedings. A trial court's decision to allow the use of a stun belt is governed by the same legal principles developed in our earlier cases regarding the use of physical restraints at trial, primarily the use of shackles. See, e.g., Bryant v. State, 785 So.2d 422, 428 (Fla.2001) (involving use of leg and waist restraints). As a general rule, a defendant has the right to appear before the jury free from physical restraints. See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970) (mentioning this principle in relation to shackles). However, a criminal defendant's right to be free of physical restraints is not absolute. See Bryant, 785 So.2d at 428; United States v. Mayes, 158 F.3d 1215, 1225 (11th Cir.1998) (quoting United States v. Theriault, 531 F.2d 281, 284 (5th Cir.1976)). Restraints may be necessary to prevent the defendant from disrupting the trial . . . and to protect the physical well-being of the jury, lawyers, judge, and other trial participants. Israel v. State, 837 So.2d 381, 390 (Fla.2002) (quoting Zygadlo v. Wainwright, 720 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir.1983)). The use of restraints is within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Elledge v. State, 408 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Fla.1981). The trial court discussed the use of a stun belt during a hearing on various motions. A separate evidentiary hearing was not required. The court articulated on the record why the stun belt was necessary. While the hearing was somewhat informalfor example, the sheriff was not under oath when he explained the operation and use of the belt  the court's inquiry was sufficient. The court addressed factual questions related to the stun belt's operation, explored less problematic methods of restraint, and found that the belt was necessary in this particular case for reasons articulated on the record. [12] Specifically, a sheriff from the Broward Sheriff's Office informed the court of the belt's workings and concealability as well as the conditions that would require its activation. While there was no prior history of violent courtroom outbursts, the court noted that Weaver's self-representation would have him moving about the courtroom and this presented some safety concerns. The court pointed out that there would be sidebar conferences, access to witnesses and jurors, and the State expected to introduce guns and ammunition at the trial. When Weaver asked the court to consider other alternatives, the court replied that it could not have him wear leg irons or handcuffs in front of the jury and that leg braces would limit his mobility. The court determined that the stun belt was the best device to address the security concerns presented by appellant's pro se status. It found the stun belt neither visible nor suggestive and ordered that a jacket be made available to better conceal the belt. Weaver's argument that the trial court erred in ordering the use of a stun belt is especially weak in light of his pro se status. While prior violent courtroom behavior can justify the imposition of restraints, it is not the only circumstance justifying their use. Cf. Bryant, 785 So.2d at 429 (holding that necessity of restraints was justified by trial judge's first-hand knowledge of defendant's prior violent courtroom behavior). Weaver's pro se status meant that he would be moving about the courtroom in close proximity to the judge, jurors, prosecutors, witnesses, and potential firearm evidence. This closer proximity to various trial participants arguably raises greater safety concerns than a defendant who is represented by counsel and has no legitimate reason to wander beyond the defense table. Given these circumstances, in which a defendant charged with first-degree murder was representing himself and moving about the courtroom in close proximity to trial participants, especially adverse witnesses, the trial court did not abuse its discretion even though Weaver had no prior history of violent courtroom behavior. Weaver relies on the Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Durham, 287 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir.2002). In Durham, 287 F.3d at 1305-06, the court noted that stun belts pose a far more substantial risk of interfering with a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confer with counsel and direct his own defense than do leg shackles and that discharge of a stun belt poses a greater threat to the dignity of the courtroom than shackles. The court reasoned that although stun belts were less visible than other restraining devices, they also imposed a substantial burden on a defendant's ability to participate in his own defense because [i]t is reasonable to assume that much of a defendant's focus and attention when wearing [a stun belt] is occupied by anxiety over the possible triggering of the belt. In short, the defendant would be too busy concentrating on doing everything to prevent the belt's activation at the expense of his participation. Id. at 1306. Certain facts distinguish Weaver's case from Durham. Durham did not act pro se and thus did not present the more pressing safety concerns inherent in the pro se context. Nevertheless, Weaver argues that Durham's rationale about the substantial burden that a stun belt imposes on a defendant's ability to participate in his own defense is not limited to defendants represented by counsel and applies with even more force to a pro se defendant. He argues that the anxiety caused by the possibility of an accidental discharge is arguably more present given that the pro se defendant is making more movements that could be perceived as threatening, thereby triggering an unwarranted discharge of the stun belt. See id. at 1305 (stating that the fear of receiving a . . . shock for any gesture that could be perceived as threatening likely chills a defendant's inclination to make any movements during trial  including those movements necessary for effective communication with counsel). The trial court was concerned with the unique security issues posed by Weaver's pro se status and not just with the possibility of disruptive trial antics. There is a meaningful distinction between mere verbal disruption and conduct that threatens courtroom security. See Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1240 (9th Cir.2001). Potential threats of violence or escape are sufficiently identifiable to allow a defendant to advocate his cause without fear that law enforcement will mistake his forceful advocacy for such a threat. See id. As a result, concerns about a stun belt's potential to prejudice or chill a defendant's advocacy are less compelling when the belt's use is justified on grounds of preventing violence or escape. See id. at 1242 (discussing the prejudice concerns posed by shackles and alternative forms of restraint and noting that in shifting the focus from preventing disruption to addressing security, the belt's chilling effect becomes less prejudicial and the alternatives more so). A stun belt's potential for prejudice must be measured against other alternative forms of restraint and whether these alternatives are less prejudicial or viable. In this case, there was virtually no alternative to a stun belt given the visibility of other restraints and the security concerns posed by Weaver's pro se status. As this Court has stated, a criminal defendant's right to be free of physical restraints is not absolute. Bryant, 785 So.2d at 428; see also Mayes, 158 F.3d at 1225. Under these circumstances, the decision to employ a stun belt constitutes a rational exercise of the trial court's discretion that was reasonably necessary to ensure order and safety in the courtroom, especially in light of defendant's pro se status. Next, we must address the undisputed accidental discharge of the stun belt. During voir dire, the stun belt was accidentally discharged outside the presence of the jurors. The belt was activated after a guard accidentally triggered the remote control while helping to move a courtroom computer. The deputy was using an older model of the belt that did not have a protective guard on the remote control unit. When initially informed about the stun belt, the court was informed that the triggering mechanism involved a key rather than a switch. Thus, the belt that was being used differed from the one initially described. The record suggests that the older model was necessary because the model initially described to the court did not adequately secure Weaver. After the accidental discharge, the deputy removed the stun belt control from her belt and placed it in a drawer. The following exchange occurred between appellant and the judge: THE COURT: All right. Mr. Weaver, are you okay? THE DEFENDANT: Just shaken a little bit, that's all. THE COURT: Are you ready? Are you able to proceed now? THE DEFENDANT: Could we wait about 15 more minutes, just maybe get this little nervousness calmed down a little bit. THE COURT: I overheard your lawyers ask you when you walked in, they asked you how you were. You said you were fine. THE DEFENDANT: As far as pain or anything like that, there is no pain. But there is a little bit  you can see  Shortly thereafter, a brief recess was taken. After the recess the court asked appellant if he was ready to proceed and he said, I suppose. The jury was brought back into the courtroom and defendant proceeded with his voir dire of the jurors. Before the lunch break, the court informed Weaver that a nurse would examine him. The nurse determined that Mr. Weaver was fine. Weaver now argues that he became meek and subdued after having been stunned by the electrical bolt and that he was no longer as zealous an advocate for himself. This issue was never raised at trial. Absent fundamental error, an issue will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Farinas v. State, 569 So.2d 425, 429 (Fla.1990). Weaver did not object and did not request a mistrial. Even now he fails to specifically allege how the shock affected his performance. While no Florida court has considered the accidental discharge of a stun belt, other jurisdictions have held that a defendant is not prejudiced where the discharge occurs outside the presence of the jury. See Wachholtz, 952 P.2d at 398 (affirming denial of motion for mistrial based on the accidental discharge of stun belt that occurred while potential jurors were assembled but before voir dire had begun, where the defendant had offered no evidence that potential jurors actually heard the defendant scream after the belt's discharge); Hollaway v. State, 116 Nev. 732, 6 P.3d 987, 994 (2000) (reversing conviction, in part, because of stun belt's accidental discharge before the jury during closing arguments); State v. Filiaggi, 86 Ohio St.3d 230, 714 N.E.2d 867, 875 (1999) (finding that defendant's jury waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary even though it occurred on the same day as accidental discharge of stun belt where court took a recess directly after accidental discharge for the remainder of the morning and reconvened in the afternoon). [13] In this case, the accidental discharge occurred outside the jury's presence and the trial court took a brief recess before continuing voir dire. Therefore, the accidental discharge of the stun belt did not prejudice the defendant.