Scales v. State

Bernard Scales was convicted of aggravated child molestation and other crimes after being tried while wearing a 'Band-it' security device attached to him by the Sheriff's Department without a prior hearing on whether extra security was needed. After his conviction, Scales asked for a new trial, arguing the device violated his rights to testify, to participate in his own defense, and to equal treatment. The Court of Appeals of Georgia rejected those claims, finding any error in not holding a hearing first was harmless because there were enough grounds to justify the device. Scales then asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to review that decision. The court denied the petition for certiorari, meaning it declined to take up the case, so the Court of Appeals' ruling and Scales' conviction remain in place. A concurring Justice agreed with denying review but wrote separately to caution trial judges that decisions about courtroom security devices must remain with the court, not be left entirely to law enforcement policy.

The court denied the petition for certiorari, leaving undisturbed the Court of Appeals' conclusion that any error in not holding a hearing before using the security device was harmless because sufficient grounds existed to justify its use.

The ruling leaves in place a Court of Appeals decision allowing use of restraint devices on defendants without a prior individualized hearing in some circumstances, while a concurring Justice's warning may push Georgia trial judges to hold more specific hearings before authorizing such devices in future cases.

Petition for certiorari denied

1. The concurrence explains that trial judges must balance a defendant's constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence, against the need for courtroom safety, and that this balance cannot be delegated entirely to law enforcement.
2. It notes that under existing Georgia law (citing Hill v. State), no defendant should be tried while shackled except as a last resort, and any decision to restrain a defendant requires case-specific, individualized findings by the court, not just law enforcement discretion.
3. The concurrence observes that the security device in this case, the 'Band-it,' was applied under a Sheriff's Department Standard Operating Procedure that let a law enforcement supervisor use it on every incarcerated felony defendant without court findings, which conflicts with the individualized-findings requirement.
4. Despite these concerns, the concurrence agrees with denying certiorari because the Court of Appeals had already found any error in skipping a hearing was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given that adequate grounds existed to justify using the device.
5. The concurrence concludes that while courts must respect law enforcement's role in securing courtrooms, the ultimate decision to restrain a defendant must remain with the trial judge to safeguard constitutional rights.

• courtroom security device
• Band-it restraint
• child molestation conviction
• due process rights
• shackling defendants