Is a security officer's presence next to a testifying defendant at the witness stand prejudicial?

"Many courtroom security procedures are routine and do not impinge on a defendant's ability to present a defense or enjoy the presumption of innocence. [Citation.] However, some security practices inordinately risk prejudice to a defendant's right to a fair trial and must be justified by a higher showing of need. For example, visible physical restraints like handcuffs or leg irons may erode the presumption of innocence because they suggest to the jury that the defendant is a dangerous person who must be separated from the rest of the community. [Citations.] Because physical restraints carry such risks, their use is considered inherently prejudicial and must be justified by a particularized showing of manifest need. [Citations.]" (People v. Hernandez (2011) 51 Cal.4th 733, 741-742.)

In contrast, a security officer's presence next to a testifying defendant at the witness stand is not "inherently prejudicial" and does not constitute a " 'human shackle.' " (People v. Stevens (2009) 47 Cal.4th 625, 636, 638.) "[S]o long as the deputy maintains a respectful distance from the defendant and does not behave in a manner that distracts from, or appears to comment on, the defendant's testimony, a court's decision to

Page 58