State v. Brawley, 321 Conn. 583

Defendant Michael Brawley was tried (jury for most counts; court trial on firearm count) for multiple violent offenses and sentenced to a 30-year term after conviction.
At trial the court denied defense counsel’s request to remove the defendant’s shackles, stating a routine practice of keeping shackles on during trial; no on-the-record findings of necessity were made.
Defense did not renew the objection or make an offer of proof showing the jury could see the restraints.
The Appellate Court affirmed; the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification limited to whether the defendant had to remain shackled during the guilt phase.
The Supreme Court ordered the trial court to state whether the jury saw the shackles; the trial court, six years later, believed the jury did not see leg shackles and described courtroom practices to conceal restraints.
The Supreme Court concluded the trial court’s routine shackling practice was improper but found no record evidence the jury observed the restraints, so any error was not shown to have prejudiced the defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brawley)	Held
Whether ordering the defendant to remain shackled during trial without on‑the‑record findings violated due process	Improper but harmless because record contains no evidence the jury saw the shackles	Shackling without particularized, on‑the‑record necessity violated presumption of innocence and required new trial	Court: Shackling without findings was improper, but defendant failed to show the jury knew of restraints, so no reversible error
Who bears burden when record is silent on jury visibility of restraints	Defendant must show jury knew of restraints when record is silent	State should bear burden to prove harmlessness once shackling error occurred	Court: If restraints were visible, state must prove harmlessness; if record is silent, defendant bears burden to show jury awareness
Whether routine court policy of keeping shackles on is permissible	Policies are not a substitute for particularized findings of necessity	Routine shackling violates requirement that restraints be used only when reasonably necessary and recorded	Court: Routine policy violates principle that restraints require particularized necessity and record findings

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (visible, unjustified shackling requires reversal unless state proves harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389 (1996) (defendant must show jury knew of restraints to prove prejudice when record does not show visibility)
State v. Tweedy, 219 Conn. 489 (1991) (trial court must detail reasons for restraints on the record)
State v. Woolcock, 201 Conn. 605 (1986) (absence of record evidence that jury observed shackles defeats shackling claim)
Sekou v. Warden, 216 Conn. 678 (1990) (restraints justified where record shows inmate’s violent history and risk)
United States v. Banegas, 600 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2010) (held burden should shift to government when record is silent; Court disagreed with this interpretation)