Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
November 21, 2013

New trial ordered for defendant shackled in front of jury

The Court of Appeals reversed a conviction and ordered a new trial where the jurors saw the defendant in shackles in a case that came down to a credibility contest.

The panel's per curiam unpublished opinion in People v. Relerford concludes that permitting the jury to see the defendant shackled, without making specific findings that the shackling was necessary, violated his constitutional rights. The particular court had a policy of shackling all criminal defendants, regardless of perceived danger. Moreover, the error was not harmless and requires reversal of the conviction and a new trial. The trial in question was largely a credibility contest between the defendant and another witness, and the appellate panel held the remainder of the prosecution's evidence was not sufficiently compelling for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without the witness testimony. Where credibility was a critical issue, allowing the jurors to see the defendant shackled without good reason was enough for a new trial.

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.



+ -