People v. Hernandez
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
*736Opinion
CORRIGAN, J.
In People v. Stevens (2009) 47 Cal.4th 625, 638 [101 Cal.Rptr.3d 14, 218 P.3d 272] (Stevens), we held that the 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. We explained, however, that 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.) Here, the trial court did not make a case-specific decision but instead deferred to a general policy when it stationed a deputy…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Holbrook v. FlynnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Deck v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- People v. WinbushCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- People v. GonzalezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
- People v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- People v. Amezcua & FloresCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- People v. Iraheta, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.