Opinion ID: 1135841
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The jury's view of Hedlund in leg shackles

Text: Hedlund was required to wear leg shackles during the trial. The layout of the courtroom resulted in the defense table being directly across from the jury box and there was no covering on the front of the table to hide Hedlund's legs from the jury. Hedlund argues that his constitutional rights were violated because the jury was facing the defense table and necessarily saw the shackles. In State v. Boag, this court commented on the obvious need to leave matters of courtroom security to the discretion of the judge, stating that absent incontrovertible evidence of [harm to the defendant], the trial court should be permitted to use such means, to secure the named ends [as circumstances require]. 104 Ariz. 362, 366, 453 P.2d 508, 512 (1969). The only evidence of harm Hedlund offers is a third-party, hearsay statement from a defense investigator alleging one juror said she made eye contact with one of the defendants and that it was eerie. Such an unsubstantiated allegation falls far short of the evidence contemplated in Boag. When a trial judge's decision to restrain a defendant is supported by the record, this court has upheld that decision, even when the jury views the defendant in restraints. State v. Harding, 137 Ariz. 278, 288-89, 670 P.2d 383, 393-94 (1983) ( pro se defendant wore shackles), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1013, 104 S.Ct. 1017, 79 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984); State v. Stewart, 139 Ariz. 50, 53-57, 676 P.2d 1108, 1111-12 (1984) (defendant wore leg brace, visible shackles, and was gagged); State v. Johnson, 122 Ariz. 260, 272, 594 P.2d 514, 526 (1979) (defendant wore leg irons and was heavily guarded). Here, the trial judge specifically made a record to document his security concerns: Hedlund attempted an escape during the summer of 1991 and also made plans with another capital defendant to escape by attacking a guard and taking his uniform and gun. Given the judge's well-founded security concerns and the absence of evidence of specific prejudice to Hedlund, we cannot find that the judge abused his discretion.