 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Boyd v. Commonwealth8/25/2005
. 1997)). Here, the jailer related the contents of one of Boyd's recorded telephone conversations while in jail, in which he said if things did not go "according to what he liked, that he was going to show or act out." Boyd was also recorded as saying that he would flee if his father secured his release from jail on bond.
We also note the great care used by the judge in making the decision to place Boyd in shackles. He began the hearing on this issue by noting his concern for prejudice. The judge wanted to have Boyd placed in leg restraints instead of handcuffs because it would be less visible to the jury, but did not do so only because Boyd's large size would not allow it. Furthermore, the judge offered to admonish the jury on three separate occasions throughout the trial, but Boyd's counsel declined the offer. Finally, Boyd's handcuffs were not easily visible to the jury because he was restrained behind his back, and the judge allowed him to testify while remaining seated at counsel's table, thus lessening their visibility to the jury.
Normally, when a defendant is placed in shackles in front of a jury, the trial judge should give an admonishing instruction to the jury to reduce the possibility of prejudice. Hill, 125 S.W.3d at 236. Here, however, the judge did not give the instruction because Boyd's counsel declined it on three separate occasions during the trial. As we have noted many times, a party cannot decline such an offer and then later complain that the judge's failure to admonish the jury is reversible error. Allen v. Commonwealth, 302 Ky. 546,195 S.W.2d 96; 98 (1946).
In sum, the trial judge had reasonable grounds to find that Boyd was either a flight risk or presented a threat of violence to himself or others. Given his previous outburst and the testimony of the jailers regarding potential dangerous conduct at trial, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in shackling Boyd. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the Muhlenberg Circuit Court.
All concur.
|