With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". gave no consideration to lesser restraints and made no adequate findings that forcing Messrs. Pursley and Wardell to wear a stun belt ... was necessary.”). We uphold the district court’s stun-belt order. While a defendant enjoys the “right to appear before the jury unfettered from physical restraints,” this right is not unqualified. United States v. Hack, 782 F.2d 862, 867 (10th Cir.1986). Freedom from restraint helps to preserve, among other constitutional guarantees, “the due process right to a fair and impartial trial.” United States v. Apodaca, 843 F.2d 421, 430-31 (10th Cir.1988). A district court, however, retains the discretion to take measures to maintain order and security within its courtroom. See Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 632, 125 S.Ct. 2007, 161 L.Ed.2d 953 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Hack, 782 F.2d at 867 (acknowledging the

A: recognizing a hearing officers latitude in making credibility calls
B: recognizing that trial courts have great latitude and considerable discretion to determine necessary and proper jury instructions
C: recognizing the need to give trial courts latitude in making individualized security determinations
D: recognizing defense counsel must have wide latitude in making tactical decisions
C.