State v. M. Whitford, 2021 MT 259N

Whitford, an inmate at Montana State Prison, was tried and convicted by a jury of two counts of misdemeanor assault with bodily fluid for spitting on two detention officers during a cell-to-shower transfer.
At a January hearing Whitford had refused to leave his cell and was pepper-sprayed; the court discussed courtroom security in light of that conduct.
At an in-chambers security conference the prison requested three officers in the courtroom (two seated within arm’s length behind Whitford); officers reported recent incidents in which Whitford charged at staff and had been placed in a restraint chair and spit hood.
Defense counsel objected to a belly-chain and handcuffs as prejudicial, but did not object to leg irons or to officers sitting near Whitford; the court ordered leg irons (not visible to the jury) and allowed three officers in the courtroom.
On appeal Whitford argued the restraints and officer presence violated his right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence because the court did not make the required findings of compelling circumstances or pursue less restrictive alternatives.
The Montana Supreme Court applied the Herrick two-part test and plain-error framework, found no prejudice (leg irons were not visible; jurors knew Whitford was an inmate), and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering physical restraints (leg irons) without first finding compelling circumstances and pursuing less restrictive alternatives	State: Court relied on prison reports of recent violent incidents and legitimately sought to maintain courtroom security	Whitford: Court failed to make required findings of compelling necessity and did not adequately consider less-restrictive measures; leg irons undermined presumption of innocence	Court: No plain error; record showed security concerns and alternatives were considered; leg irons were not visible to jury; no abuse of discretion; conviction affirmed
Whether the presence of three officers (two within arm’s reach) prejudiced the defendant or required special findings	State: Presence of officers was standard procedure for inmates and not inherently prejudicial	Whitford: Close, visible officers plus restraints created prejudicial effect and undermined fair trial	Court: Presence of officers is not inherently prejudicial; on these facts jury likely inferred custody status; no showing of prejudice; plain error review not warranted

State v. Herrick, 324 Mont. 76, 101 P.3d 755 (2004) (adopts two-part test for courtroom restraints: compelling circumstances and pursuit of less-restrictive alternatives)
State v. Rickett, 384 Mont. 114, 375 P.3d 368 (2016) (review for abuse of discretion on restraint orders)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (defendant may not be routinely shackled at sentencing absent an essential state interest specific to the defendant)
Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986) (presence of security officers is not inherently prejudicial; must be assessed case-by-case)
Kills on Top v. State, 273 Mont. 32, 901 P.2d 1368 (1995) (arms-length officer presence requires case-specific prejudice analysis)
State v. Hartsoe, 361 Mont. 305, 258 P.3d 428 (2011) (shackling errors generally subject to harmless-error analysis)