Aung v. Cain

If “a defendant is restrained in a manner that is not visible to the jury, prejudice will not be presumed.” Sproule v. Coursey, 276 Or App 417, 425 (2016).

Petitioner was convicted of multiple crimes after a trial where he wore one or more restraints, to which trial counsel did not object. He assigns error to the post-conviction court’s denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, arguing that his trial counsel's failure to object to the use of a leg-brace restraint and stun gun belt caused him prejudice. If “a defendant is restrained in a manner that is not visible to the jury, prejudice will not be presumed.” Sproule v. Coursey, 276 Or App 417, 425 (2016). The Court declared the need for a finding as to whether the restraints were visible to the jury. If they were visible, Petitioner may be able to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, assuming evidence of prejudice is submitted. If they were not, Petitioner must prove he suffered from another type of prejudice to prevail. Reversed and remanded on Petitioner’s claim for relief as to counsel’s failure to object to physical restraints; otherwise affirmed.