[RightField]

Let me get this straight .... he was shackled at his SENTENCING? This means ... ummmmm ... the jury already found him guilty?

from the article: Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, said that shackling indicates to juries "that court authorities consider the offender a danger to the community."

"It also almost inevitably affects adversely the jury's perception of the character of the defendant," he wrote.

just d*mn. Seems like the jury already gave their perception of the defendant.

[pubmom]

Justice Stephen Breyer, extraordinary idiot.
Dear God, we're in trouble.

[mlc9852]

Their logic is truly frightening.

[goldstategop]

Stephen Breyer is an idiot liberal! This guy already WAS convicted. How more "dangerous" could he get? If he murdered people in front of the jury? Might as well give defendants guns and knives just to equalize things - for appearance's sake.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[FreedomHasACost]

The jury may have found a killer guilty but still not consider him dangerous. Yeah right!
In all seriousness I wonder how many jurisdictions will have to change procedure.
I'm glad I can still return fire and handcuff the guys I pick up even though they have not been PROVEN guilty. But wait! that might hurt their reputation if someone sees, maybe we should start just not arresting them I think that follows the same principle that Justice Breyer alluded to. /sarcasm

[ImphClinton]

Why couldn't the shackles be out of view.

Bring in the jury after the Defendant is tied to his bolted down chair. A specially designed undershirt could do the trick. Although making the lock pick-proof might be difficult it should be possible.