PEOPLE v. ALBERT LEWIS Part-V

PEOPLE v. ALBERT LEWIS Filed 8/24/06 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S033436 v. ) ALBERT LEWIS and ) ANTHONY CEDRIC OLIVER, ) ) Los Angeles County Defendants and Appellants. ) Super. Ct. No. BA001542 _______________________________________ ) Continue from Part IV â€¦â€¦. C. Shackling Orders (Oliver) Oliver maintains the trial court violated <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">People v. Duran</a> (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282 (Duran), when it ordered (1) a leg brace on April 20, 1992, several months before trial began, and (2) a <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">leg-waist-and-wrist chain</a> on February 2, 1993, the day after Oliver joined Lewis in <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">attacking counsel in court</a>. Oliver claims the decision to restrain him before trial, and to impose heavier restraints after the midtrial assault, violated his rights generally under the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments</a>, and under parallel provisions of the state Constitution. He asserts that the court's rulings had the additional legal consequence of violating his <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">due process rights under the Fifth Amendment</a>. Except for due process, the constitutional claims are forfeited. (Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428, 435.) No state law error occurred. Under Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d 282, a <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">criminal defendant</a> may be subjected to physical restraints in the jury's presence upon â€