Court orders defendants to wear leg restraints at trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Terre Haute has granted the government’s request that two defendants wear modified leg irons at an upcoming jury trial due to their violent criminal histories – both outside of prison and while incarcerated. The men face charges stemming from the murder of a fellow inmate.

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson granted the request Thursday in United States of America v. William Bell and Lenard Dixon, 2:13-CR-0021, finding that William Bell and Lenard Dixon present “extreme need” that justifies being restrained at trial for courtroom security.

Dixon’s attorney argued that the men have an inherent right to be free from shackles at trial, consistent with the presumption that they are innocent until proven guilty. But Magnus-Stinson rejected the argument, citing that it is not the shackling itself but the prejudice that could result if the jury were allowed to continuously view the defendants in a restrained manner.

Both Bell and Dixon, inmates in the Federal Correction Complex in Terre Haute, have lengthy criminal histories that show a propensity of violence toward others. Bell has a history of being generally disruptive and resisting restraints and has broken facility property while incarcerated. Dixon has been disciplined on numerous occasions for possessing dangerous homemade weapons while incarcerated as well as threatening bodily harm.

Bell is being tried for allegedly killing fellow inmate Brian Pendelton while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Complex. He faces life imprisonment if convicted. Dixon is alleged to have been an accessory after the fact to the murder of Pendleton and faces up to 15 years in prison if guilty.

The court order requires that the men wear modified leg restraints fitted with tape and soft material to limit any audible noise. Their hands will not be restrained during trial. All tables in the courtroom will be skirted as they were at the hearing on the motions regarding restraints and the defendants will be transported as necessary outside of the presence of the jury.


  • There are other methods
    While I respect Her Honor and her action, there are other methods which are much more effective for restraining potentially violent innocent inmates. A long time ago there was a belt made which goes around the inmate under his clothing and it is controlled by remote control. The Judge holds the remote or the bailiff can hold it on the Judges order. The belt provides a small shock to the defendant, enough to stop them from what they are doing. It also provides escalation warning beeps that it will go off if the action is not changed. It does not permanently hurt the defendant, rather allows time for them to be properly restrained. I've only seen it activated 2 times. One time was when the defendant charged the bench, and one time when the defendants attorney was punched. Both times order was restored to the court very quickly.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues