---
title: Scales v. State
collection: opinions
id: S25C0749
cite_as: Scales v. State, S25C0749 (Ga. Aug. 26, 2025)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25C0749
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25C0749.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25C0749/text
source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10672250/scales-v-state/
date: 2025-08-26
status: published
corpus_version: opinions-2026-09-14
license: Public record of the Supreme Court of Georgia, via CourtListener and the court's own website; see about.md
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/2025.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25A0816.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25A0556.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md
omitted: opinion extras
omitted_chars: 2004
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25C0749.md?full=1
docket: S25C0749
court: Supreme Court of Georgia
case_type: criminal appeal
authoring_justice: LaGrua
disposition: Petition for certiorari denied
vote: All the Justices concur, except Land, J., disqualified
word_count: 870
date_filed_source: courtlistener
record_source: courtlistener
legal_areas:
  - criminal law
  - constitutional law
upstream_id: "10672250"
summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5
---

# Scales v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S25C0749, filed 2025-08-26.

## Opinion

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.

SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA

Case No. S25C0749 August 26, 2025

The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment. The following order was passed:

BERNARD SCALES v. THE STATE

The Supreme Court today denied the petition for certiorari in this case.

All the Justices concur, except Land, J., disqualified.

Court of Appeals Case No. A24A1351

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta

I certify that the above is a true extract from the

minutes of the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk

LAGRUA, Justice, concurring.

Trial court judges have a difficult job in many respects, but particularly, when it involves balancing the constitutional rights of a defendant and the presumption of innocence, while also ensuring that litigants, witnesses, juries, and the public are safe and secure in the courtroom. In an era of pervasive threats to judges and court personnel, it has become increasingly challenging to balance those two interests.

That said, judges take an oath to follow the law, and the law mandates that we protect the rights of parties, including defendants, in the courtroom and elsewhere, especially during trial. That is why I join fully in the majority’s denial of certiorari, but again caution trial judges that security within the courtroom is under their control and cannot be abdicated to law enforcement personnel. See Green v. State, 246 Ga. 598, 600 (1980).

Scales was charged with aggravated child molestation and other crimes. During trial, the Sheriff’s Department attached a “Band-it” security device to his person without a hearing laying out fact-specific

reasons addressing the need for additional security measures. Scales was ultimately convicted and sentenced. He then filed a motion for new trial, alleging for the first time, that among other things, his due process rights to be present, and meaningfully participate in his own defense, his right to testify, his right to equal protection, and his right against abuse of prisoners, had been violated because he was required to wear the “Band-it” security device.

The Court of Appeals found that [i]n denying the motion for new trial, the trial court found that Scales failed to demonstrate any harm to his constitutional right to testify and participate in his own defense based on the use of the Band-it, and to the extent the court erred in failing to hold a hearing prior to placing the device on him, any such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because ample grounds existed to authorize the use of the device. Scales v. State, 374 Ga. App. 257, 258 (2025).

The specific facts of this case are addressed in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. What concerns me is that the testimony at the motion-for-new-trial hearing established, and the State does not now dispute, that use of the “Band-it” security device is controlled by the Supervisor of Court Services (which in this case was Lt. Richard Harrison with the Carroll County Sheriff’s Office) pursuant to a written Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”). The SOP gives the supervisor the discretion to use additional security measures deemed appropriate (adhering to certain guidelines) without the court making specific findings addressing the need for additional security. However, according to Lt. Harrison’s testimony at the motion-for-new-trial hearing, the Band-it is used on every incarcerated defendant brought to trial on a felony charge.

As I have consistently cautioned trial courts: “It is well established that no person should be tried while shackled except as a last resort,” Hill v. State, 308 Ga. 638, 644 (2020) (cleaned up), and should a trial court utilize shackles the trial court must make “case- specific and individualized findings to support its initial decision.” Id. That decision should clearly be made with input from the law enforcement agency tasked with securing the courtroom, but the ultimate decision remains with the court.

Webster’s dictionary defines shackling as “something that confines the legs or arms,” as well as “to deprive of freedom especially

of action by means of restrictions or handicaps.” Based on the testimony at the motion for new trial, Lt. Harrison made clear that the “Band-it,” once activated, would restrict the defendant’s ability to move around.

Trial courts have a heavy burden to protect the people that enter the courtroom they supervise, and while that is a trying responsibility in these times and while it is understandable to want to use restrictions to ensure a high level of safety and public confidence in the security of the courtroom, ensuring a defendant’s constitutional rights remains paramount. When we do not keep that at the very forefront of our minds, we risk the rights of us all.

I am authorized to state that Justice McMillian joins in this concurral.

## Summaries written by Georgia Commons

The following was written by claude-sonnet-5 from the opinion above and is not part of the court's opinion. Quote the opinion, not the summary.

The Supreme Court of Georgia denied review of a man's challenge to being restrained by a 'Band-it' security device during his child molestation trial, letting his conviction stand while a concurring Justice warned trial judges about courtroom security practices.

### Plain-language summary

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.

### Holding, as summarized

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.

### Disposition

Petition for certiorari denied. All the Justices concur, except Land, J., disqualified.

### Why it matters

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.

> The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (2,004 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25C0749.md?full=1