CHEYENNE - Defendants can no longer be shackled during a jury trial unless the state can justify the need for the restraints, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a Natrona County drug case.

The court reversed the conviction of David Asch in 7th District Court on grounds his defense attorney was ineffective and because his legs were shackled during his one-day trial Feb. 22, 2000.

The court sent the case back to 7th District Court with orders to grant Asch a new trial.

The unanimous Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice Barton Voigt, said the effect on the jury of shackling a defendant is the major concern of most courts.

"Once again, we are not convinced that it should be a criminal defendant's responsibility to ensure that he is provided a trial free from inherently prejudicial practices," Voigt wrote. "That duty should belong to the state and to the court."

The opinion added that in future cases "defendants shall not be shackled or otherwise physically restrained in the courtroom during a jury trial, nor shall other exceptional security measures be utilized" unless the state files a motion with the court for restraints. The court must allow the defendant a chance to respond and must state on the record the compelling reasons for allowing restraints, the opinion said.

The opinion noted that the Natrona County Sheriff's Office has had a policy for about 30 years of shackling the legs of prisoners who appear in court but allowing their hands to be free.

But Natrona County Sheriff Mark Benton said the shackling practice began 10 or 12 years ago. He said he will discontinue shackling prisoners at the direction of the courts.

"I don't think it's going to have a major impact on us," he said of the change. The opinion, furthermore, didn't come as a surprise, since appeals frequently use as a basis the prejudicial nature of shackles, Benton said.

A jury convicted Asch of felony possession of methamphetamine. He was sentenced on March 28, 2000, to a term of 60 to 72 months in the Wyoming State Penitentiary.

According to the Supreme Court's recount of the case, police officer Andrew Swisher stopped a car driven by Sheryl Sutton for expired registration at about 10:30 p.m. Sept. 2, 1999, in Casper. Asch was a passenger in the front seat.

Swisher claimed he saw Asch making a "concealing movement" to the center and left of his seat. He subsequently arrested Asch for possession of seven grams of methamphetamine found between the front seats. The officer arrested Sutton for possession of a marijuana pipe found under the passenger seat.

The state's case was based almost solely on the testimony of the arresting officer, Swisher, the opinion said.

Asch claimed that Swisher's testimony at the preliminary hearing differed from his statements during Asch's trial.

For example, the opinion noted, Swisher testified at the preliminary hearing that the methamphetamine had been field-tested, yet testified at the trial that it had not been field-tested.

Asch claimed that if his contract public defender, Nadine McLeod, had obtained a transcript of the preliminary hearing, she would have been able to challenge Swisher's testimony during the trial.

McLeod, the opinion said, never admitted she had not reviewed the preliminary hearing but said she didn't recall having done so.

She defended her decision not to attack Swisher's testimony on grounds it would detract from the defense position that Sutton owned the drugs.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

"Asch was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to conduct an adequate investigation of matters surrounding his primary defense and failed adequately to pursue that defense at trial," the opinion said.