Court questions man's shackling

The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that a Lake County man's due process rights were violated when he was presented to prospective jurors while shackled and strapped to a chair.

John L. Hartsoe was convicted of aggravated assault and a probation violation in November 2009 after he was accused of attacking his estranged wife and holding her captive in 2008.

The jury found him innocent of assault with a weapon and kidnapping.

The Supreme Court ruled that a hearing must be held in Lake County District Court to determine whether or not the fact that Hartsoe was briefly restrained had a substantive impact on the verdict.

According to court documents, Hartsoe refused to take his seat during the initial moments of jury selection on Nov. 9, 2009.

He was found in contempt of court and briefly taken to a holding cell, according to court documents, where he was expected to participate via a video feed. According to the ruling, he instead was "inexplicably" returned to the court strapped to a chair.

Though he eventually was unshackled and allowed to represent himself after prosecutors conducted their questioning of prospective jurors, Hartsoe's attorney argued on appeal that it violated his rights and dignity.

"Holding inmates in filthy, uninhabitable cells and mishandling their food is no less degrading or demeaning than shackling a human, placing him in a restraining chair, and wheeling him before the very people charged with determining his innocence or guilt," Joseph P. Howard wrote in the appellant brief.

Howard noted that Hartsoe had been cooperative during all previous hearings and that there was no apparent reason for shackling him.

He also took issue with the fact that Hartsoe was held at the Lake County Jail throughout the trial due to being in contempt of court.

The Supreme Court elected not to address all points of appeal until the matter of Hartsoe being restrained is addressed. His attorney had asked that the convictions be vacated and that Hartsoe be granted a new.

"We remand the matter to the District Court and direct the District Court to determine whether the error was harmless in light of the interests that the right to remain free of physical restraints was designed to protect," Justice Michael Wheat wrote.