Opinion ID: 686095
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Leg Restraints.

Text: 7 Defendant McRaven argues that the district court erred when it required him to wear leg restraints during his trial. While the imposition of leg shackles is justified in only extraordinary situations, Kennedy v. Cardwell, 487 F.2d 101, 105 (6th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 959 (1974), the decision to shackle a defendant during trial rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Id. at 107. This court reviews the district court's ruling for an abuse of discretion. Id. 8 As the district court noted in a well-reasoned opinion, the shackles were necessary in light of McRaven's history of violent crimes, his present charge of attempted escape, and the fact that prison guards found two concealed knives in his shoes just two months prior to this trial. Furthermore, the district court lessened the shackling's potentially prejudicial effect by having skirting added to both the defense and prosecution tables, requiring the Marshals to seat the defendants prior to the jury's entering the courtroom, and having the defendants remain seated until the jury exited. These precautions provided sufficient protection against any  'inherently prejudicial'  exposure to the jury. United States v. Moreno, 933 F.2d 362, 368 (6th Cir.1991) (exposure of the jury to a defendant in shackles requires a mistrial only when the exposure is ... 'inherently prejudicial' ). For these reasons, we find no abuse of discretion in the use of the shackles. 9