[Ksyrup]

Although I don't do criminal law AT ALL, I wanted to address the idea expressed above that unshackling a defendant for trial is either a result of political correctness or just plain stupid. Where required, it may be prudent and/or necessary. But this is hardly a new thing, and the law is pretty well-settled on the general issue (this is taken from a Washington Supreme Court opinion I found on the issue):

A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to appear at trial free
from shackles or other physical restraints, except in extraordinary
circumstances. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S. Ct. 1057, 25 L.
Ed. 2d 353 (1970); Rhoden v. Rowland, 172 F.3d 633, 636 (9th Cir. 1999);
Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 842. This right is an essential component of a fair
and impartial criminal trial, guaranteed by the sixth and fourteenth
amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, section 3, and
article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution. Finch, 137
Wn.2d at 843. The Supreme Court has clearly stated "one accused of a crime
is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis
of the evidence introduced at trial, and not on grounds of official
suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or other circumstances not
adduced as proof at trial." Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 485, 98 S.
Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1978).

Requiring a defendant to appear at trial in physical restraints poses a
substantial risk of destroying the defendant's presumption of innocence,
"`a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice.'"
Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 844 (quoting Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503, 96
S. Ct. 1691, 48 L. Ed. 2d 126 (1976)). Shackles unmistakably indicate the
court believes there is a "need to separate a defendant from the community
at large, creating an inherent danger that the jury may form the impression
that the defendant is dangerous or untrustworthy." Rhoden, 172 F.3d at 636
(citing Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568-69, 106 S. Ct. 1340, 89 L. Ed.
2d 525 (1986)).


While the specific application of these general tenets likely differs from state-to-state and circuity-to-circuit, and there are exceptions to every rule, the basic issue is one of ensuring our Constitutional right to a fair trial. Perhaps the method by which this was achieved in Atlanta was faulty, but this isn't the result of "PC gone amok" or sheer stupidity. These issues were decided at the US Supreme Court level, decades ago.