Georgia sheriff who held detainees in restraint chairs for hours loses appeal of criminal conviction

ATLANTA (CN) — A federal appeals court on Monday upheld the conviction of a Georgia sheriff who violated the civil rights of multiple detainees — and his own use-of-force policies — by ordering nonviolent detainees into restraint chairs for hours at a time, with their hands cuffed behind their backs and without bathroom breaks.

Victor Hill, who served as Clayton County sheriff for 10 years, was found guilty in October 2022. The Eleventh Circuit panel quashed his appeal on Monday, ruling that Hill had fair warning that his use of force was unconstitutional, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusion that his conduct had no legitimate, nonpunitive purpose.

Each detainee suffered injuries, such as “open and bleeding” wounds, lasting scars or nerve damage, according to trial evidence. Hill and his deputies used the chair about 600 times.

U.S. Circuit Judges Kevin Newsom, Robin Rosenbaum and Stanley Marcus concluded that case law has clearly established that the use of force on compliant, nonresistant detainees is excessive. They cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 finding in Hope v. Pelzer that handcuffing prisoners to a hitching post for seven hours as punishment violated the Eighth Amendment.

The panel shut down Hill's argument that the restraint chairs he used for detainees were were "passive restraints," like handcuffs or leg shackles.

"Even if restraint chairs were 'passive restraints,' as Hill contends, we have repeatedly applied the constitutional use-of-force
framework to such restraints," Rosenbaum wrote for the court.

Hill adopted a general policy for the use of all types of physical restraint devices that said if a detainee was posing a risk of
“actual violence" to themself or others, they should be placed in isolation first, and only if they continue to exhibit physical violence should they be placed into restraints.

The sheriff adopted a specific policy for restraint chairs, which were to be used only for emergencies, such as the “safe containment of an inmate exhibiting violent or uncontrollable behavior” to prevent “self-injury, injury to others or property damage.”

Chair use was never authorized as a form of punishment, and when a situation called for chair use, officers were to remove handcuffs. Detainees were to be kept in the restraint chair no longer than four hours unless "exigent circumstances exist," and must receive regular medical checks and scheduled exercise periods.

"Hill had no legitimate purpose for ordering compliant, nonresistant detainees who were in the secure jail environment into restraint chairs for at least four hours," Rosenbaum wrote.

During oral arguments earlier this month, Hill's attorneys argued that the trial judge abused her discretion in questioning a juror twice about alleged misconduct, giving two Allen charges to the jury and omitting a word in the second Allen
charge.

The circuit judges determined that the trial judge did not coerce the jury verdict and used proper discretion in investigating and responding to alleged juror misconduct.

During the deliberative process, the trial judge received a note from the foreperson of the jury complaining that one of the jurors was incompetent, would not engage in deliberations with the others wouldn't follow the court’s instructions on the law.

The judge questioned him to discern whether the allegations were true in whole or in part — but then received two more notes the next day complaining about the same juror, leading her to conduct a second round of questioning.

The circuit panel ruled that, when faced with allegations of juror misconduct, federal courts have broad investigatory discretion, especially in the interest of avoiding a mistrial or juror dismissal.

"To be sure, it was unusual for the district court to ask Juror 6 essentially the same questions twice, including once after the court gave the reconstituted jury an Allen charge. But none of the district court’s questions were coercive — even Hill does not argue that they were. And the court expressly told Juror 6 not to 'go too far in[to] what [the jury] discussed.' Nor was the questioning in and of itself coercive," Rosenbaum wrote.

"Though unusual for good reason, we cannot conclude on this record that the district court’s conduct constituted an abuse of discretion."

Marcus wrote a concurring opinion to "highlight the substantial dangers inherent in singling out a juror for judicial inquiry, particularly doing so twice within a relatively short time frame."

The Bill Clinton appointee wrote that although he agrees the judge acted within her discretion in this case, judges should take allegations of issues with a juror seriously and should take great caution when questioning them.

Hill was sentenced to 18 months incarceration after a jury convicted him of six counts of willfully depriving six detainees of their constitutional right to be free from excessive force.

He was recently released to community confinement, two months shy of spending one year in an Arkansas prison.

Follow @Megwiththenews

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit