United States v. Ronald Wulf

MEMORANDUM

Ronald Marvin Robert Wulf (“Wulf’) appeals his jury conviction for being a felon in possession in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

Wulf was restrained with ankle chains during his one-day trial, except during jury selection and'Wulfs testimony. We review a district court’s decision to shackle a defendant for abuse of discretion. Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 51 (9th Cir. 1994). Both parties agree that the district court erred in requiring Wulf to be shackled and that the court did not make the requisite findings. Wulfs request for structural error review is foreclosed by our precedent. See Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 749 (9th Cir.1995) (“Shackling, except in extreme forms, is susceptible to harmless error analysis.”).

Given the strength of the government’s case against Wulf and that there is no evidence in the record that any juror saw or was aware of Wulfs restraints, we conclude that any error from shackling was harmless. See Castillo v. Stainer, 983 F.2d 145,149 (9th Cir.1992) (finding shackling at trial harmless error because defendant only wore waist chain that could not have been seen by…