Opinion ID: 1890241
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jurors Seeing Hull in Handcuffs

Text: Hull asserts that on the final day of trial, as he was brought to the courthouse, a couple of jurors allegedly saw him with handcuffs on his wrists. The restraints were removed before Hull entered the courtroom. Hull argues that his motion for a mistrial on the basis of the incident should have been granted. We have said that appropriate steps should be taken to minimize exposure to the jury of the use of handcuffs on defendants at trial. State v. Klinkert, 271 Minn. 548, 549, 136 N.W.2d 399, 400 (1965). But we have distinguished the use of restraints inside the courtroom from the use of restraints during transport to or from the courtroom[,] which we said is likely to be seen for just what it isstandard law enforcement practice. State v. Shoen, 598 N.W.2d 370, 378 (Minn.1999). When the incident in question here was brought to the district court's attention, the court renewed its instruction to the State that Hull was not to be seen in restraints by the jury. But the court concluded that Hull was not prejudiced by the incident because the jury must have known that Hull was in custody. We hold that the court's denial of Hull's mistrial motion was not error. See State v. Eling, 355 N.W.2d 286, 292 (Minn.1984) (holding that the defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial where the trial court took reasonable steps to minimize defendant's exposure in handcuffs to the jury's view but could not eliminate all risk.).