Opinion ID: 2594892
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of Leg Braces

Text: At the outset of trial, the court expressed concern about courtroom security and said it would bring the matter to the bailiff's attention. One of the defense attorneys said that's not to suggest shackling. The court stated that it had used a leg brace underneath the pants in the past. It explained that the brace was not visible to the jury, offered security to the bailiff, and did not appear to be uncomfortable. It said it had had people sit in here with a leg brace, it's unlocked at the knee so that they can bend but they cannot run. The defense attorney said, As long as it's not a situation where one side would want them to stand or walk or move around. The court responded, If they take the stand, they could deal with the leg brace then. The defense attorney expressed concern that someone might ask a defendant to stand up or walk around, but otherwise none of the defendants objected to use of a leg brace. The court said it would let the bailiff use his good judgment on that, they know the information on the people. A short time later, the court stated, and defense counsel agreed, that it would not be a good idea to bring the defendants out in chains in front of the jury. It proposed to bring this to the attention of the bailiff. There's leg braces that can be used if the sheriff believes that this is an issue of security, the leg brace is under one['s] pants, it's not something that the jury can see and the defendants will be brought in each day before the jury is placed in the jury box so that they are not going to see the leg brace. Later in the trial, the court explained for the record the situation regarding restraints: During the course of the trial the leg braces have been used for each of the defendants and the leg braces are ... applied under the pants so that they are not obvious to the jury. During the course of the trial the defendants were brought out and placed in the counsel table before the jury was brought out and the jury has exited the courtroom prior to the defendants' leaving the courtroom. The court stated the leg braces were employed because of the number of the defendants in the courtroom regarding this type of a case, the nature of the allegations that have been charged by the [P]eople and also the physical size of the defendants involved. The court added that, based on its observations, it believed the jury had not been able to determine that the defendants wore leg braces. It invited the parties to be heard on the point, but no one added anything. Defendants argue the court erred in ordering the leg braces and improperly abdicated its responsibility to the bailiff. However, they did not object at trial to what actually occurred. One of the defense attorneys said the security should not include shackling, and the defense attorneys wanted the court to ensure that the jury would not see the brace. But none objected to using leg braces under the pants. Accordingly, the issue is not cognizable on appeal. ( People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th 569, 583, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142.) Moreover, we see no prejudice. The court was understandably concerned about courtroom security given that three defendants were charged in a capital trial with a particularly violent crime. But we need not decide whether the relatively minimal restraints imposed here were justified, for any error was harmless. `We have consistently found any unjustified or unadmonished shackling harmless where there was no evidence it was seen by the jury. [Citations.]' [Citation.] Even a jury's brief observations of physical restraints generally have been found nonprejudicial. [Citations.] ( People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1213, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 477, 47 P.3d 262.) Defendants speculate the jury might have observed the braces on a few occasions, but the record does not support the claim. The court specifically found that the jury had not seen the braces, and defendants did not disagree when given the opportunity to address the point. Moreover, at most, any jury observation would have been brief. The court also said it would consider what to do if a defendant chose to testify, but none did. Under the circumstances, we find no prejudice. ( Id. at p. 1214, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 477, 47 P.3d 262.)