Legal Opinion

People v. Stevens

California Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 2009No. S158852PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*629Opinion

CORRIGAN, J.

We hold here 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. Defendant Lorenzo Stevens attempts to bring his case under the exacting manifest need standard by asserting that the deputy’s presence is akin to a “human shackle.” A divided Court of Appeal rejected this argument, and we do so as well. This conclusion is consistent with our explicit and unanimous holding in People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 222-224 [2 Cal.Rptr.3d 252, 72 P.3d 1222]…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Estelle v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Holbrook v. FlynnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Deck v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  5. People v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. People v. Bryant, Smith and WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  2. People v. GamacheCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  3. People v. LomaxCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  4. People v. VirgilCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  5. People v. LivingstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012

36 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