Anderson v. Furst et al

Filing 161

ORDER Granting 153 Motion in Limine to be Free of Shackles or Other Visible Restraints in Front of the Jury During Trial. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JERRY ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-12676
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

COLTER FURST, ET AL.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO BE FREE OF SHACKLES OR OTHER VISIBLE
RESTRAINTS IN FRONT OF THE JURY DURING TRIAL [ECF No. 153]

I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2021, the Court held a pretrial conference regarding

the parties’ proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order and Plaintiff’s Motion in
Limine to: (1) exclude evidence of his criminal conviction; 2) permit him to
wear civilian attire at trial; and (3) be free from shackles or other visible
restraints in the presence of the jury. [ECF No. 153, PageID.988].
On August 18, 2021, the Court issued its order on Anderson’s Motion
in Limine. [ECF No. 156]. The Court granted Anderson’s request to
preclude detail of his criminal conviction. The Court also granted
Anderson’s request to wear civilian attire at trial. But the Court held in
1

abeyance his request not to be shackled in Court, pending supplemental
briefing from Defendants addressing Anderson’s dangerousness.
On August 30, 2021, Defendants filed their supplemental brief. [ECF
No. 157]. The supplemental brief states that Anderson’s Michigan
Department of Correction (MDOC) security classification changed from
Level II to V on September 14, 2020, when he was transferred from the
Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) to Marquette Branch Prison (MBP).
[ECF No. 157, PageID.1090]. MDOC transferred Anderson because of a
“pending investigation into inmate unrest” at URF. [ECF No. 157,
PageID.1090]. This investigation revealed that Anderson was not involved
in any misconduct. [ECF No. 157, PageID.1090]. As of October 6, 2021,
Anderson’s security classification has been reduced from Level V to Level
II, and he is currently incarcerated at Kinross Correctional Facility (KCF).
For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the remaining portion of
Anderson’s Motion in Limine.
II.

ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court held that the “Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

prohibit the use of physical restraints visible to the jury absent a trial court
determination, in the exercise of its discretion, that they are justified by a
state interest specific to a particular trial.” Deck v. Missouri 544 U.S. 622,
2

622 (2005). State interest may include “physical security, escape
prevention, or courtroom decorum.” Id. at 628.
The Sixth Circuit addressed the constitutionality of a criminal
defendant wearing shackles during a jury trial in Davenport v. MacLaren,
964 F.3d 448, 459 (6th Cir. 2020). “‘Where a court, without adequate
justification, orders the defendant to wear shackles that will be seen by the
jury,’ the defendant’s due process rights are violated.” Id. (quoting Deck,
544 U.S. 622, at *635). In Davenport, the State of Michigan conceded that
the defendant’s shackling during his trial was unconstitutional. Davenport,
964 F.3d 448, at *451. Although Davenport will be argued before the
Supreme Court to assess whether this constitutional violation was harmful
error – necessitating a new trial – it is universally agreed that visible
shackling of a criminal defendant is unconstitutional. Here, Anderson is
Plaintiff in a civil trial, but there is great potential for similar prejudice in a
civil jury trial.
Anderson’s MDOC security classification was increased for an
investigation that revealed he was not involved in any misconduct. [ECF
No. 157, PageID.1090]. As of October 6, 2021, Anderson’s security
classification decreased from Level V to Level II.

3

In light of this security classification reduction, Defendants’ failure to
show other security reasons for shackles, and potential due process
violations, the Court finds that the need for him to wear shackles visible to
the jury is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. However, Defendants argue
that Anderson should be restrained in a way that is not visible to the jury
because he was arrested for a violent crime – homicide in the second
degree – and he attempted to flee police custody during the arrest in
question.
The Court understands the importance of judicial safety and believes
there is a way to mitigate security concerns while avoiding prejudice to
Anderson.
During a status conference on October 6, 2021 – attended by
Anderson’s counsel, Brian Farrar, and Defendants’ counsel, Elizabeth
Watza – the parties agreed that Anderson could wear ankle shackles
during the trial as long as they are not visible to the jury. This arrangement
will give Anderson the ability to take notes during trial, freely communicate
with his attorney, and avoid being seen in shackles by the jury – all
concerns raised by Anderson’s counsel.
The Court orders the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and/or MDOC to use
ankle shackles that do not make noise (e.g., rubber coated shackles), so
4

the jury cannot hear them in the courtroom. The Court’s layout will conceal
the ankle shackles from the jury; Anderson will sit at a table where his feet
and ankles will not be visible to the jury.
III.

CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Anderson’s Motion in Limine to be free of

shackles or other visible restraints in front of the jury.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: October 13, 2021

5