So now Westlaw search function has apparently crapped out on the internet and I need a case, quick.
I know (ok, I think) there are cases that talk about how the standard of proof for shackling a defendant is lessened once he is found guilty. Could anyone give me a quick cite to that effect, please? (That part of Westlaw is still working).
Anyway, my defendant, who is at least a 6th degree black belt just informed us on cross-examination at punishment that "I could escape any time I want I just haven't because I want to face my charges." No, really.....
Anyway, the 6 officers we've had for security are kind of freaking out now and want him shackled. The judge agrees but would like a case on point.
Thanks in advance.
Oh yeah, also during his testimony, he informed the jury that I was wearing short, tight skirts and bending over in front of him on purpose to try and seduce him. No, really..... Oh, and incidentally, that's not true!

James v. State, No. 09-01-500 CR, 2002 WL 999770 at *1 (Tex.App.-Beaumont May 15, 2002, no pet.) (not published) ("Because the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence is not implicated, shackling the defendant during the punishment phase does not merit the strict review accorded the use of restraints during the guilt phase of the trial. Marquez v. State, 725 S.W.2d 217, 227 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). The report of an escape plot provided sufficient justification for the use of restraints.")

Another case:

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that, without evidence of violence or threatened violence during trial, even the gruesome nature of the crime alleged against the defendant would not justify the use of shackles in front of the jury. Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259, 283 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1224, 112 S.Ct. 3042, 120 L.Ed.2d 910 (1992). But where the evidence overwhelmingly indicated that extreme measures were necessary to protect those present in the courtroom, the court upheld the use of handcuffs and leg irons on a defendant during the punishment phase of *330 the trial. Marquez v. State, 725 S.W.2d 217, 228-30 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872, 108 S.Ct. 201, 98 L.Ed.2d 152 (1987); see also Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1061, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970)

From Marx v. State, 953 S.W.2d 321, 329-30
(Tex.App.-Austin 1997,)aff'd 987 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Use Lexis

Too bad he will not be able to claim ineffective assistance from his attorney (for "letting" him testify).