California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. WALLACE, 189 P.3d 911, 44 Cal.4th 1032, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 651 (Cal. 2009):
[A] defendant cannot be subjected to physical restraints of any kind in the courtroom while in the jury's presence, unless there is a showing of a manifest need for such restraints. ( People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282, 290-291, 127 Cal.Rptr. 618, 545 P.2d 1322, fn. omitted.) But we will not overturn a trial court's decision to restrain a defendant absent a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion. ( Id. at p. 293, fn. 12, 127 Cal.Rptr. 618, 545 P.2d 1322.) We have said that a [m]anifest need arises only ' when the defendant has been unruly, has announced [an] intention to escape, or when the evidence shows the defendant would likely disrupt the judicial
[189 P.3d 927]
process' if left unrestrained. ( People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 651, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 28 P.3d 175.) The imposition of physical restraints in the absence
[81 Cal.Rptr.3d 670]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.