Opinion ID: 1090851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Failure to Secure Russell's Presence in the Courtroom Without Shackles

Text: ¶ 139. The State filed a motion for restraints. Russell argues that the motion was granted without an evidentiary hearing. Actually there was a hearing on the motion before trial. Defense counsel said that it would agree to Russell's feet being shackled but not either hand, and the shackling must be hidden from the jurors. ¶ 140. Russell cites Hickson v. State, 472 So.2d 379, 384 (Miss.1985), which states that one on trial for life or liberty may in the presence of the jury be handcuffed or otherwise shackled only by reason of a clear and present danger to order or security. Russell argues that such danger must have arisen from the trial in question, and that a clear and present danger cannot arise from past events. We disagree. In this case there was the evidence of what the Russell was accused as to Officer Cotton; there was Russell's past conviction for armed robbery; and there was Russell's escape attempt from UMMC, which allegedly ended in a shoot-out. ¶ 141. Russell also cites the unsworn statements of Dorothy Fulwood; Robert Pitts; Herbert Hargett; and Adline White. The statements mentioned Russell's size and how he frightened these people. With only unsworn statements in support, which are vaguely related at best, we find that this issue is without merit.