State v. Rickett, 2016 MT 168

Charles Dustin Rickett was tried by jury on charges including aggravated kidnapping, intimidation, and escape for allegedly escaping a pre‑release facility and kidnapping a former foster mother to access a safe.
At trial Rickett attended in street clothes wearing a security leg brace under his pants; defense counsel asked the court to order deputies to remove the brace because it created a noticeable bulge and might cause Rickett to fiddle or limp.
The District Court twice denied the requests, finding the brace was concealed enough and consistent with sheriff security procedures, but allowed counsel to re‑raise the issue if Rickett stood before the jury.
The jury convicted Rickett of aggravated kidnapping, intimidation, and escape; burglary was dismissed mid‑trial. Rickett was sentenced as a persistent felony offender to 40 years.
On appeal Rickett challenged the District Court’s denial to remove the leg brace as a restraint violating the constitutional right to appear before the jury free of physical restraints.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by requiring Rickett to wear a leg brace during trial	State: denial was permissible for courtroom security and was not prejudicial	Rickett: restraint violated right to appear free of physical restraints and court failed to apply Herrick two‑step test	Court: district court applied no formal Herrick test (abuse of discretion) but error was harmless; affirmed conviction

State v. Herrick, 324 Mont. 76, 101 P.3d 755 (Mont. 2004) (adopted two‑step test: compelling security need and less‑restrictive alternatives before restraining defendant)
State v. Hartsoe, 361 Mont. 305, 258 P.3d 428 (Mont. 2011) (error in failing to apply Herrick is subject to harmless‑error analysis unless structural)
State v. Price, 331 Mont. 502, 134 P.3d 45 (Mont. 2006) (standard of review: abuse of discretion but plenary review for legal conclusions)
Castillo v. Stainer, 983 F.2d 145 (9th Cir. 1992) (restraint not visible to jury can render error harmless)
Walker v. Martel, 709 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2013) (a visible leg brace may indicate custody status but not necessarily violent propensity)