Legal Opinion

People v. Hernandez

California Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 2011No. S175615PublishedCited by 38 opinions

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

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Holbrook v. FlynnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Deck v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 2005

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. People v. WinbushCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  2. People v. GonzalezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
  3. People v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  4. People v. Amezcua & FloresCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  5. People v. Iraheta, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API