California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Johns, 56 Cal.App.4th 550, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 434 (Cal. App. 1997):
Patten goes on to state, "In [Coy v. Iowa and Maryland v. Craig ] ..., the mere utilization of the procedure infringed upon a constitutional right. Such cannot be said of the statute here. Penal Code section 868.5 allows the presence of up to two support persons during the testimony of the prosecuting witness. The statute clearly encompasses circumstances when the support persons are present in the audience section of the courtroom and without having any particular attention drawn to them. Such a procedure would result in minimal, if any, influence on a jury and would not rise to a level of possible infringement on the constitutional guarantee of due process. Thus, under the California statute, the absence of a requirement of a case-specific showing of necessity does not, as defendant argues, make this statute unconstitutional per se. This is so because procedures available to utilize support persons pursuant to the statute would not infringe any constitutional rights." (People v. Patten, supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 1727, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 284, fn. omitted.)
2.-5. **
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.