State v. Aguero, 791 N.W.2d 1

In Sept. 7, 2001, Robert Belgarde and his son Damien were found murdered near Grand Forks with multiple gunshot wounds and a head injury to Robert; scene evidence included a beer bottle, cigarette, unspent 9 mm cartridges, and bullet casings.
In Aug. 2008, Agüero and Moneada were charged with two counts of murder and two counts of conspiracy to commit murder; the State alleged Belgardes contacted Moneada for drugs and were taken to a rural area where they were killed.
The cases were joined for trial; Moneada was in a Minnesota prison on a detainer and sought speedy disposition under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers; pretrial, the court granted requests for non-visible restraints, but later the defendants wore leg shackles during trial.
A pretrial motion sought non-visible restraints; the court granted the motion, but during trial the defendants wore leg shackles; the court later ruled the restraint use was harmless and not reversible error.
The district court’s decisions on restraints, confrontation, evidentiary rulings, and detainer continuances were appealed; the supreme court affirmed the judgments with concurring opinions addressing restraint procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leg restraints visible to the jury violated due process.	Agüero and Moneada argued restraints were improper and prejudicial.	State contends restraints were justified for security and not shown to be prejudicial.	Harmless error; no reversible due process violation.
Whether the admissibility of a decedent’s out-of-court statements through a third party violated the Confrontation Clause.	Moneada argues Giles limits use of decedent statements; Crawford framework applied.	Statement was non-testimonial and not subject to confrontation rights.	Not a confrontation violation; statements not testimonial.
Whether the detainer continuance on the IAD violated the 180-day requirement.	Moneada contends delay without good cause violated IAD timing.	Court found good cause and balanced delay factors.	Court did not abuse discretion; good cause shown.
Whether Brandy Clauthier’s statements were admissible as prior consistent statements (not hearsay).	Claunther testimony supported conspiratorial narrative.	Statements were hearsay if not properly fitting 801(d)(1) criteria.	Admissible as non-hearsay prior consistent statements.
Whether the jury should have been admonished at every adjournment; if not, whether error was harmless.	Failure to admonish could prejudice; objected none.	Error harmless absent prejudice.	Harmless error; no reversal.

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2005) (prohibition on routine visible restraints absent case-specific justification)
Kunze, 2007 ND 143 (N.D. 2007) (case-specific restraint justification; less restrictive alternatives must be considered)
In re R.W.S., 2007 ND 37 (N.D. 2007) ( shackling precedents; dignity/meaningful defense; restraint analysis)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (forfeiture limitations; confrontation for testimonial statements only)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (improper use of post-arrest silence for impeachment barred)