Opinion ID: 1433861
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juror Observations of Defendant in Shackles

Text: Defendant contends he was denied his right to a fair trial because on two occasions certain jurors observed him manacled. The record discloses no error. On the first occasion, one of the jurors arrived at the courtroom prior to the commencement of trial for that day. The bailiff directed him to the jury room pending the completion of other court business. Unbeknownst to the bailiff, defendant was in the jury room sitting in a chair handcuffed and shackled. The juror immediately came out and informed the court of defendant's presence. The court instructed the juror not to discuss the matter and to wait in the hall. After informing counsel of the incident, the court held a voir dire examination during which the juror indicated in response to questioning by the court and defense counsel that he was in the jury room about a minute and a half and did not observe whether defendant was restrained in any manner. The juror also affirmed the encounter had not affected his impartiality. Prior to the voir dire examination, defense counsel had already represented he did not think the incident warranted juror disqualification. Thereafter, he did not suggest the examination had changed his mind. Nor does anything in the record support defendant's current claim. The second incident occurred following the guilt phase. Counsel represented that defendant had been brought into court and was being unshackled when three jurors walked into the courtroom. The bailiff immediately turned them around and sent them out. According to counsel, it happened so quickly and he was not going to raise that as an issue. The court conducted individual voir dire examinations of the three jurors. One juror said she saw just people's heads and wasn't really looking. Another didn't see anybody but backs of heads and did not know who was in the courtroom. The third juror saw defendant standing with his back toward the doorway. He did not notice anything about his dress, his manner, or what he was doing. Following the examination, counsel did not indicate he had changed his mind. (Cf. People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th 569, 583, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142.) Again, nothing in the record supports a contrary view. Neither incident could have affected defendant's right to a fair trial. ( People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 652, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351.) Moreover, since no juror saw him in restraints, the court had no obligation to instruct on the point.