How have the courts dealt with the use of chains and stun belts in court?

Defendant first argues his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the use of restraints, or at least to the courts decision to restrain him with both chains and a stun belt. However, the violence of defendants courtroom outburst, and the extreme difficulty deputies had in subduing him, made the legitimacy of ordering these restraints manifest. A decision not to pursue futile or frivolous motions does not make an attorney ineffective. ( People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 122, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 549, 231 P.3d 289.) Counsel wisely conceded the need for increased security measures and focused his efforts on advocating for the least visible forms of restraint. Defendant now argues having an armed deputy stationed behind him would have been preferable to the stun belt. It is difficult to conclude that such an overt action would have been preferable to restraints that may not have actually been seen by jurors. Counsel could well have concluded this option would emphasize defendants perceived dangerousness. A deputy standing or sitting close to him at all times, in stark departure from earlier practice, would surely have been more conspicuous than a slight bulge in defendants clothing from the stun belt. As to the complaint that chains were used in addition to a belt, it is unclear how defendant could have been prejudiced by the lack of an objection because the record does not establish that the jury could see either type of restraint.