Security Measures, Prison Clothing, and Restraints On Defendant

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

V. Security measures, prison clothing, and restraints on defendant

The right to a fair trial requires a determination of guilt or innocence based solely on the evidence and not based on suspicion, indictment, custody, or anything that could rebut the presumption of innocence. Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 567 (1986); Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 485 (1978).

A. Security measures

1. Courtroom security

The trial court has broad discretion in maintaining courtroom security. Whittlesey v. State, 340 Md. 30, 84 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1148 (1996); Bruce v. State, 318 Md. 706, 720 (1990). In Hunt v. State, 321 Md. 387, 408 (1990), the Court of Appeals held that the reviewing court should not determine whether less stringent security measures were available, but whether the action taken by the trial court was reasonable and whether there was an unacceptable risk of prejudice to the defendant. Accord Bowers v. State, 306 Md. 120, 138 (1986); Woodlock v. State, 99 Md. App. 728, 734, cert. denied, 335 Md. 698 (1994).

2. Essential state interests

Precautionary security measures may prejudice the defendant in the eyes of jury and should be taken in the jury's presence only if the trial court makes a finding that it is essential. ABA Standards for Criminal Justice—Discovery & Trial by Jury.

3. Officers present

Unlike shackling or gagging, which is permissible only if an essential state interest so requires, mere presence of identifiable security guards in the courtroom is not prejudicial if they are placed where jurors will likely take their presence for granted and draw no adverse inference against the defendant, as long as the number of officers or weapons do not suggest concern about the defendant. Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 569.

In Barrios v. State, 118 Md. App. 384, 398 (1997), the Court of Special Appeals held that increased security measures, including uniformed officers and a metal detector, were reasonable when (a) there were four defendants on trial; (b) there had been threats of violence; and (c) some defendants started an altercation when officers were placing them back in holding cells.

In Brown v. State, 132 Md. App. 250, 269-70 (2000), aff'd on other grounds, 364 Md. 37 (2001), the Court of Special Appeals held that the trial court did not err, during the murder trial of a police officer, in denying the defendant's motion to exclude police officers from the courtroom, and denying a motion for a mistrial on that basis, when the defendant provided no evidence that police presence created a distraction or intimidated witnesses or jurors. Accord Campbell v. State, 243 Md. App. 507, 521 (2019) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of courtroom security during trial).

In Holbrook, 475 U.S. 560, the Supreme Court held that the presence of uniformed State Troopers behind the defendant, but separated by a "bar" between the gallery and defense table, did not prejudice the defendants to the extent that a new trial was required. The Court stated:

We do not minimize the threat that a roomful of uniformed and armed policemen might pose to a Defendant's chances of receiving a fair trial. But we simply cannot find an unacceptable risk of prejudice in the spectacle of four such officers quietly

...