Opinion ID: 148935
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Restraining Mr. Cook at Trial.

Text: As part of the presumption of innocence, a defendant has a qualified right not to appear before a jury in shackles. United States v. Wardell, 591 F.3d 1279, 1293 (10th Cir. 2009). “‘A district court, however, retains the discretion to take measures to maintain order and security within its courtroom.’” Id. In any given case, a district court must weigh these competing concerns and make a decision on the record. Id. at 1294. It may not delegate its decision to the United States marshals, although it may rely heavily on their advice. United States v. Apodaca, 843 F.2d 421, 431 (10th Cir. 1988). We accordingly review a district court’s physical restraint of the defendant - 10 - for an abuse of discretion. Id. But, keeping in mind due process, we also give restraints “‘close judicial scrutiny.’” Wardell, 591 F.3d at 1293 (citing Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 504 (1976)). Here, it is a close case whether or not the district court impermissibly delegated its discretion to the marshals. We, however, need not decide this issue. Even assuming that the court erred when it shackled Mr. Cook, the record does not show that the jury saw the shackles and was thereby prejudiced against him. Table skirts covered all restraints. And although Mr. Cook’s counsel expressed concern that jurors may have read a newspaper article mentioning the shackles, the record does not show that any jurors had read the article in violation of the court’s instruction not to do so. 4 R. at 864-65; 5 R. at 203. Accordingly, Mr. Cook cannot show prejudice and any presumption of prejudice that applies when a jury saw or knew of the shackles does not apply. Wardell, 591 F.3d at 1294. AFFIRMED. We GRANT Mr. Cook’s motion to supplement the record. ENTERED FOR THE COURT