Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 01-282, SECTION: R(1)
May 9, 2003
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the motion of defendants Johnny Davis and Richard Porter to prohibit the use of stun belts as a security measure during their trial. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
On April 22, 2003, the Court entered an order that the defendants Johnny Davis and Richard Porter wear stun belts during their trial. (Rec. Doc. No. 475.) The Court explained that its decision was based on the recommendation of the U.S. Marshals and consideration of the violent nature of the charges against defendants, the severity of the possible penalties, defendants' criminal histories, and Mr. Davis's history while incarcerated. The Court indicated that a stun belt is the least obtrusive means to maintain security in the courtroom and would not give rise to a prejudicial effect because it is not visible to the jury.
Upon defendants' request, on April 23, 2003, the Court held a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether defendants should be required to wear stun belts. Jacques Thibodeaux, the Deputy United States Marshal responsible for monitoring the Court's security during this trial, testified that use of stun belts is appropriate in this case pursuant to the U.S. Marshals' stun belt policy guidelines. (Test. of Thibodeaux.) The policy guidelines allow for the use of stun belts if any of the following circumstances exist: (1) the U.S. Marshals have a reasonable belief that the prisoner presents a danger of injury or death to others; (2) the U.S. Marshals have a reasonable belief that the prisoner presents a substantial escape risk; or (3) the U.S. Marshals have a reasonable belief that conventional restraints are not appropriate. ( Id.) Thibodeaux testified that he believes all three circumstances exist, based upon the violent nature of the charges against defendants, the severity of the possible penalties, defendants' criminal histories, and Mr. Davis's history while incarcerated. ( Id.) In particular, Thibodeaux indicated that he had received corroborated information about an attempt by Mr. Davis to smuggle a weapon into jail to aid in his escape. ( Id.) Further, Thibodeaux indicated that individuals have attempted to use false identification to visit Richard Porter in jail. ( Id.) For these reasons, both defendants were transferred to a higher security prison. ( Id.) Although Thibodeaux stated that the defendants have not engaged in any inappropriate behavior during their pretrial hearings, he also stated that they have been restrained in arm and leg shackles at every pretrial hearing. ( Id.) Thibodeaux also is aware that there is a high degree of hostility between the defendants and individuals who will be witnesses in this trial. ( Id.)
The Marshals showed the defendants an instructional video about the stun belt several days before trial, which was viewed by the Court and all parties during the evidentiary hearing. ( Id.) The video provides detailed footage of the effects of the stun belt on law enforcement officers who wore it for demonstration purposes. It is clear from the video and Thibodeaux's testimony that the belt causes several seconds of pain and loss of muscle control and even muscle spasm, but that the belt causes no short term or long term damage. In many of the demonstrations, the wearer was able to stand up and discuss the effects of the belt immediately after undergoing a shock. During the shock, however, it is clear that the wearer is deprived of the ability to control his physical actions.
Thibodeaux testified that the belt is adjustable to fit comfortably and is situated in such a way that the wearer cannot easily remove it. ( Id.) Thibodeaux further testified that all of the Marshals involved in monitoring this trial have been trained on how to use the stun belt. ( Id.) Finally, Thibodeaux testified that stun belts have been used in fifteen to twenty trials in the Eastern District of Louisiana which he has personally supervised, including death penalty and felon-in-possession cases. ( Id.) In none of these cases was it necessary to activate the stun belt. ( Id.)
In Chavez v. Cockrell, 310 F.3d 805, 807 n. 1, 809 (5th Cir. 2002), the Fifth Circuit joined many federal circuits in approving the use of stun belts as a security device. In Chavez, the defendant's stun belt accidentally activated and caused the defendant to undergo a shock in front of the jury. See id. at 809. The Fifth Circuit approved of the district court's decision to use a stun belt because the district court specifically found that the defendant was a flight risk and that the use of a belt was necessary. See id. Further, the Fifth Circuit stated, "[Blecause the trial court could have permitted the use of visible restraints at [defendant's] trial, we do not believe that the jury's momentary glimpse of the effects of the stun belt denied Chavez the presumption of innocence." Id. The court found that the district court took sufficient steps to ensure that any prejudicial influence on the jury caused by the stun belt's accidental activation was mitigated. See id.
In deciding whether to require a defendant to wear a restraint during his trial, it is the responsibility of this Court "to protect the court and its processes, and to attend to the safety and security of those in the courtroom." United States v. Weeks, 919 F.2d 248, 250 (5th Cir. 1990) ( quoting United States v. Nicholson, 846 F.2d 277, 279 (5th Cir. 1988)). This responsibility is entrusted to the Court's discretion, and the Court may rely heavily on the U.S. Marshals' advice as to appropriate security measures. See id. The Court finds that the U.S. Marshals' recommendation that the defendants in this case wear stun belts is based on relevant information about the violent nature of the charges against defendants, the severity of the possible penalties, defendants' criminal histories, and Mr. Davis's history while incarcerated. Further, the Court finds that the potential for animosity in the courtroom between defendants and hostile witnesses is high. The Court further finds that, based on their criminal histories, information about Mr. Davis's behavior in prison, and information about the nature of Mr. Porter's visitors in prison, the defendants would be a flight risk and a potential danger to others if they were not restrained. The Court also finds that the U.S. Marshals are well-trained in operating the stun belts. Finally, the Court finds that stun belts, which are not visible to jurors and are worn under clothing, are the least obtrusive means for securing the defendants. The Court is confident that the defendants are aware of the consequences should they attempt to behave violently while wearing the belts.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion to prohibit the use of stun belts at trial is DENIED.