California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Cramer, H034348 (Cal. App. 2016):
Restrictions on the use of physical restraints apply to defense witnesses as well. (People v. Ceniceros (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 266 (Ceniceros); Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 288, fn. 4.) However, the court in Ceniceros held that the erroneous shackling of a defense witness only violates state law, triggering harmless error review under the less stringent standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [requiring reversal only if it is reasonably probable a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached in the absence of the error].) The court distinguished the effect of shackling a defendant, which impinges on the presumption of innocence, from the shackling of a defense witnessa condition that merely affects the witness's credibility, and does not directly affect the presumption of innocence. (Ceniceros, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 280.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.