What is the state attorney general's position on stun belts?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Howard, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 678, 243 P.3d 972, 51 Cal.4th 15 (Cal. 2011):
Defendant contends that by requiring him to wear a stun belt, the court violated his constitutional rights and contravened this court's ruling in People v. Mar (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1201, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 161, 52 P.3d 95 ( Mar ).5 The Attorney General argues that the record does not show defendant actually wore a stun belt during trial, as the only other reference to the matter is a notation in the clerk's transcript of the hearing that included the discussion quoted above. The Attorney General asserts that defendant's
[51 Cal.4th 28]
failure to make an adequate record of any restraints imposed on him below results in a waiver of the issue on appeal. If the objection by defense counsel to the prospect of using a stun belt is deemed sufficient, the Attorney General claims the record does not support defendant's claim that he was prejudiced.[51 Cal.4th 28]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
