Is the presence of a courtroom deputy next to a testifying defendant prejudicial?

Decisions regarding security measures in the courtroom are reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Stevens (2009) 47 Cal.4th 625, 632.) "[T]he stationing of a courtroom deputy next to a testifying defendant is not an inherently prejudicial practice that must be justified by a showing of manifest need." (Id. at p. 629.) However, the decision may not be deferred to law enforcement. The trial court must exercise its own discretion and determine on a case-by-case basis whether such heightened security is appropriate. (Id. at p. 642.)

In this case, Brummitt never testified. A deputy was placed behind him as he sat at the defense table. Contrary to the defendant in People v. Stevens, supra, 47 Cal.4th 625, who did testify, Brummitt did not testify with a deputy next to him on the witness stand. The presence of a deputy in close proximity to Brummitt is therefore even less inherently prejudicial.