State v. Hartsoe, 258 P.3d 428

Hartsoe was charged by information with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, kidnapping, and later a misdemeanor violation of a protection order.
Hartsoe rejected private counsel, sought to proceed pro se, and the district court warned of the dangers of self-representation.
The district court conditionally appointed the public defender but later relieved counsel when Hartsoe sought to proceed pro se.
During voir dire on the first trial day, Hartsoe refused to sit at counsel table and was temporarily restrained and later returned to the courtroom shackled in a chair.
The district court ordered Hartsoe into a holding cell, later returned him shackled to a chair, and then allowed him to participate with standby counsel available.
Hartsoe was ultimately convicted of aggravated assault and violation of a protection order, with acquittals on other counts, and was held in contempt during part of proceedings; the court remanded for harmlessness review on the shackling issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether shackling Hartsoe during voir dire violated due process.	Hartsoe’s restraints violated due process.	State contends decorum/custody justified restraints.	Remanded for harmlessness review; due process issue not resolved on record.
Whether Hartsoe’s shackling violated his right to dignity.	Hartsoe was humiliated by restraints.	Court’s decorum concerns outweighed dignity interests.	Not addressed due to remand on Issue One.
Whether the court properly allowed Hartsoe to represent himself.	Hartsoe should be allowed pro se.	Hartsoe knowingly waived counsel after court warned of dangers.	Hartsoe voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived right to counsel; self-representation permitted.
Whether contempt/holding Hartsoe in contempt complied with statutory and due process requirements.	Contempt procedures violated statute and due process.	Contempt and incarceration within permissible judicial authority.	Contempt issue not reviewed on direct appeal; remanded on other issue.

State v. Herrick, 2004 MT 323 (Mont. 2004) (sets two-prong test for shackling in trial to preserve due process)
State v. Merrill, 343 Mont. 130; 183 P.3d 56 (Mont. 2008) (discusses need for record-based compelling circumstances and less restrictive alternatives)
Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 1995) (shackling analysis; harmless-error framework)
Castillo v. Stainer, 983 F.2d 145 (9th Cir. 1992) (shackling as last resort; factors for harm analysis)
State v. Matt, 2008 MT 444; 347 Mont. 530; 199 P.3d 244 (Mont. 2008) (structural vs non-structural errors; harmless-error applicability)