Coralville inmate awarded new trial

An inmate being housed at the Iowa Medical and Classification Center in Coralville has been awarded a new trial after he was kept in leg restraints during his first trial, creating a possible bias for jurors.

The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Earl J. Griffin's assault conviction in 2010. Griffin was convicted for assaulting a corrections officer in the Coralville prison on Nov. 15, 2009, by hitting him in the eye and then continuing to punch him.

The officer suffered facial cuts and other injuries, and Griffin went to trial on those charges on Nov. 1, 2010. Before jury selection, Griffin's attorneys objected to the use of leg restraints during the trial, according to the appellate court ruling.

“Counsel argued that Griffin should not be restrained during trial and stated the chains would be unfairly prejudicial before the jury,” according to the ruling.

Defense attorneys also informed the judge that jurors had seen Griffin in restraints on his way into the courtroom. Prosecutors argued that the Sheriff's Office should be granted deference to determine the conditions of his security, according to the ruling.

A judge agreed with prosecutors, saying, “I think they have the right to enforce security as they see it necessary.” The judge did express preference for a shock belt – which would have been hidden from view – and said it was impossible to keep an in-custody defendant separate from a public space occupied by potential jurors, according to the Court of Appeals.

Griffin was convicted on the assault charge and sentenced to up to two years in prison. In his appeal, Griffin argued that the court abused its discretion by failing to make an individualized determination on the need for some form of physical restraint.

The Court of Appeals, in its ruling, said the district court failed to articulate a specific reason why Griffin posed a risk in the courtroom and instead of exercising its own discretion, it handed the decision over to the Sheriff's Office.

“It is for the court, not the police, to determine what restraints are necessary during trial,” according to the appellate court ruling.