Court Opinion

ID: 9785290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:14:18.640404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:14.977182
License: Public Domain

Read, J. (dissenting).
I agree with the majority that the trial judge in this case should have explained on the record why, to safeguard courtroom security, he ordered defendant to wear a stun belt during trial. In this case, however, the presumption of innocence was not implicated by the judge’s failure to inquire about the particular need for use of a stun belt and to make factual findings on the record. Defendant—a man in his thirties who apparently stands more than six feet tall and weighs over 300 pounds—repeatedly protested that the stun belt was uncomfortable (a complaint that the judge ordered a physician to evaluate), and that he should not have to wear this restraint because he was presumed to be innocent. But defendant failed to show that the stun belt was visible to the jury or otherwise compromised the fundamental fairness of the trial; he never objected that the stun belt impaired his ability to communicate with his attorney or meaningfully participate in his defense. Since I therefore do not believe that defendant has shown any actual prejudice, I would affirm his conviction (see e.g. State v Bowen, 340 Or *5487, 496, 135 P3d 272, 279 [2006], cert denied 549 US 1214 [2007]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in per curiam opinion; Judge Read dissents and votes to affirm in a separate opinion.
Order reversed, etc.