Laserfiche WebLink
City of Tukwila My WebLink |HelpSearch Tips |About |Sign Out
No. 51177-1-II <br />The State contends that we cannot grant effective relief, and therefore, the issue is moot, <br />because "the underlying criminal case has been resolved through jury trial." Br. of Resp't at 10. <br />However, the fact that the case proceeded to trial and that Jackson was ultimately convicted, does <br />not preclude us from granting relief. We may reverse and remand for a new trial based on pretrial <br />errors. See State v. Coley, 171 Wn. App. 177, 179, 286 P.3d 712 (2012), rev'd on other <br />grounds,180 Wn.2d 543 (2014) (reversing and remanding based on the misallocation of the burden <br />of proof in a pretrial competency hearing). <br />Because a remedy remains available for the alleged pretrial errors that occurred, the issue <br />of Jackson's pretrial restraints is not moot. <br />C. CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR <br />Here, the trial court clearly committed constitutional error when it failed to address the <br />necessity of shackling Jackson during pretrial hearings and of restraining Jackson with a leg brace <br />during the jury trial. <br />At the pretrial stage, the trial court did not make any findings regarding the need to place <br />Jackson in shackles. In fact, the trial court failed to even address whether any physical restraints <br />were necessary. The court did not analyze any of the relevant factors and failed to recognize that <br />under well -settled law, physical restraints should be used only in extraordinary circumstances and <br />as a last resort. <br />The trial court considered the issue of shackling criminal defendants generally at a hearing <br />involving many defendants. The trial court's decision was driven not by any identified safety risk <br />posed by Jackson or any particular defendant, but rather by logistical concerns for the Clallam <br />County Superior Court as a whole. Indeed, the trial court not only failed to conduct an <br />W <br />21 <br />