ILNews

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT