Appelle's brieft

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 8
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 8
I. Procedural History 9
II. The Facts Supporting Shackling 9
III. The Facts Supporting Peremptory Challenge 10
STANDARD OF REVIEW 11
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 11
ARGUMENT 12
I. The Shackling: The Court did not abuse its discretion inrequiring Appellant to be shackled, as the less restrictive mean available, considering the extraordinary courtroom security circumstances

A. The essential state interest in the safety of the courtroom outweighed the Appellant’s right to be free of physical restraints during the trial, considering the especial circumstances of security in the courtroom, the Appellant’s prior outbursts in trialand his tendency to finish arguments with violence.
13
B. No restrictive means were available to satisfy the necessity to keep the courtroom and its members safe.
16

C. The trial court properly discussed in open court, outside the presence of the jury, the reasons justifying the shacking decision, and Appellant had the opportunity to oppose to the measure.17
D. Even assuming that the court erred when ordered Appellant to be shackled, such error was harmless since the restraints were not visible.
18
II. Peremptory Challenge: The trial court properly allowed Appellee the use of peremptory challenges in which the three-step procedure for objections were properly followed.
20
A. The Appellant’s objection for Appellee’speremptory challenges was timely made
20
B. The Appellee’s reasons for the peremptory challenges were based race neutral.
21
C. The trial court properly found that the reasons given by the Appellee were race-neutral and genuine, not pretextual.
23
CONCLUSION 26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 26
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 27

TABLE OFAUTHORITIES
CASES PAGES
Allen v. Montgomery,
728 F. 2d 1409, 1413 (11th Cir.1984) 15
Alen v. State,
596 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) 25
Busby v. State,
894 So.2d 88, 95 (Fla.2004)
Diaz v. State,
513 So. 2d 1045, 1047 (Fla.1987) 18
Dorsey v. State,
868 So. 2d 1192, 1196 (Fla. 2003) 25
Elledge v. Dugger,
823 F. 2d 1439, 1451 (11thCir. 1987) 16
Elledge v. State,
408 So. 2d. 1021, 1022 (Fla.1981) 18
Harrell v. Israel,
672 F. 2d 634, 634 (7th Cir. 1982) 19
Hartley v. State,

686 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 1996) 24

Hill v. State,
477 So. 2d 553, 533 (Fla. 1985) 23
Illinois v. Allen,
397 U.S. 337, 344 (1970) 12
Jackson v. State,
698 So. 2d 1299, 1303 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1997) 13Jones v. State,
787 So. 2d 154, 156 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) 20
Lowe v. State,
718 So. 2d 920, 921, 922 (Fla.4th D.C.A. 1998) 23
Lusk v. State,
446 So. 2d 1038, 1041 (Fla. 1984) 23
Moon v. Head,
285 F. 3d 1301, 1317 (11th Cir. 2002) 19
Singer v. State,
109 So. 2d 7, 7 (Fla. 1959) 23
Stewart v. State,
549 So. 2d 171, 173, 174 (Fla. 1989) 15
UnitedStates v. Baker,
432 F. 3d 1189, 1243 (11th Cir. 2005) 14
United States v. Durham,
287 F. 3d 1297, 1315 (11th Cir. 2002) 17
United States v. Cooper,
19 F. 3d 1154, 1154 (7th Cir. 1994) 22
United States v. Mayes,
158 F. 3d 1215, 1225 (11th Cir. 1998) 12-14
United State v. Samuel,
433 F. 2d 633, 633 (4th Cir. 1970) 13
United States v. Talley,
315 F.App'x. 134, 146 (11th Cir. 2008) 19
United States v. Theriault,
531 F. 2d 281, 284 (5th Cir. 1976) 12-18
United States v. Theriault,
531 F.2d 281, 285 (5th Cir. 1976) 14
United States v. Vasquez-Lopez,
22 F. 3d 900, 900 (9th Cir. 1994) 21
Young v. State,
744 So. 2d 1077, 1077 (Fla. D.C.A. 1999) 21
Zygadlo v. Wainwright,
720 F. 2d 1221, 1224 (11th Cir....