Opinion ID: 779400
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Excessive Security.

Text: 57 Williams argues that the district court erred in denying his excessive security claim on summary judgment, see Williams III, 48 F.Supp.2d at 996, because factual questions remained about the extent of the security measures taken at trial. Williams asks that we remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on his excessive security claim. 5 58 In his habeas corpus petition, Williams asserted that the obvious presence of more than the usual number of deputy sheriffs violated his constitutional right to a fair trial. See Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986) (noting that certain [courtroom] practices pose such a threat to the `fairness of the factfinding process' that they must be subjected to `close judicial scrutiny') (quoting Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503-04, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976)); Morgan v. Aispuro, 946 F.2d 1462, 1464 (9th Cir.1991) (certain courtroom arrangements prejudice the presumption of innocence). To support this claim, Williams relies upon a declaration by an alternate juror and comments made by his counsel at trial. Sherry Wiseman, an alternate juror, averred that because her brother had been a marshal, she knew that there were normally two bailiffs or marshals in court during trials. She stated that during Williams's trial, there were generally four marshals in the courtroom: one near Williams, one near the jury, and one on each side of the gate from the spectator section. 59 During trial, Joseph Ingber, Williams's counsel, made the following comments to the jury: 60 I just happened to glance around ... and found out that there were eight, sometimes nine deputy sheriffs sitting in this courtroom. Some uniform, some non-uniform. In any event, the entire trial has been permeated with bailiffs sitting immediately behind Mr. Williams, behind me, over my shoulder. Everywhere I have turned, there have [sic] been the protective hand of the Los Angeles County Sheriff making sure of something. I'm not sure what. 61 Aside from Wiseman's declaration and Ingber's comments, Williams cites to no other evidence or factual allegation to support his excessive security claim. 62 The noticeable deployment of security personnel in a courtroom during trial is not an inherently prejudicial practice that requires justification by an essential state interest specific to each trial. Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 568-69, 106 S.Ct. 1340; Morgan, 946 F.2d at 1464. Rather, in light of the variety of ways that security guards can be deployed, courts must determine prejudice on a case-by-case basis. Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 569, 106 S.Ct. 1340. In federal habeas corpus proceedings, federal courts reviewing the constitutionality of security personnel used at trial must look at the scene presented to jurors and determine whether what they saw was so inherently prejudicial as to pose an unacceptable threat to defendant's right to a fair trial; if the challenged practice is not found inherently prejudicial and if the defendant fails to show actual prejudice, the inquiry is over. Id. at 572, 106 S.Ct. 1340; see also Ainsworth v. Calderon, 138 F.3d 787, 797 (9th Cir.1998). 63 The facts that Williams presents in his petition and through Wiseman's declaration and Ingber's trial comments do not permit a finding of actual prejudice. At most, only the assertion in Williams's petition — that the obvious presence of more than the usual number of deputy sheriffs deprived him of a fair trial — supports an inference of actual prejudice. However, conclusory allegations by counsel that are unsworn and unsupported by any proof or offer of proof do not provide an adequate basis to obtain a federal evidentiary hearing. Phillips, 267 F.3d at 973; Coleman v. McCormick, 874 F.2d 1280, 1284-85 (9th Cir.1989) (en banc) (citing Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 503, 69 S.Ct. 201, 93 L.Ed. 187 (1948)). Thus, we must determine whether Williams's factual allegations support a conclusion that the deployment of security personnel at his trial was inherently prejudicial. The Supreme Court has said that security measures at trial are inherently prejudicial when they tend[] to brand [the defendant] in [the jurors'] eyes with an unmistakable mark of guilt, Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 571, 106 S.Ct. 1340 (internal quotations omitted), or when they create an unacceptable risk ... of impermissible factors coming into play. Id. at 570, 106 S.Ct. 1340 (quoting Williams, 425 U.S. at 505, 96 S.Ct. 1691); see also King v. Rowland, 977 F.2d 1354, 1358 (9th Cir.1992). 64 We hold that Williams's factual allegations are insufficient to justify a conclusion that the scene presented to the jurors was inherently prejudicial. Wiseman's declaration establishes only that she, an alternate juror, personally knew, due to her brother's experience as a marshal, that four marshals reflected additional security precautions. She did not indicate that any juror shared this knowledge or impression at trial. 65 Moreover, the placement of the four marshals, as Wiseman described it, does not create an unacceptable risk that the jurors impermissibly inferred Williams's guilt. As the Supreme Court has noted, the presence of guards at a defendant's trial need not be interpreted as a sign that he is particularly dangerous or culpable.... If they are placed at some distance from the accused, security officers may well be perceived more as elements of an impressive drama than as reminders of the defendant's special status. Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 569, 106 S.Ct. 1340. According to Wiseman, only one of the marshals was near Williams, with the others near the jury and the spectators. The jurors might just as easily [have] believe[d] that the [marshals were] there to guard against disruptions emanating from outside the courtroom or to ensure that tense courtroom exchanges [did] not erupt into violence. Id. (holding that the presence of four uniformed state troopers did not unconstitutionally deprive the defendant of a fair trial); see also Ainsworth, 138 F.3d at 797 (the use of four, and sometimes six, deputy sheriffs did not violate the defendant's right to a fair trial); King, 977 F.2d at 1358 (the use of three deputy sheriffs to guard the defendant was not improper). 66 Ingber's comments regarding the placement of eight or nine deputy sheriffs, some of which were in uniform and some of which were not, also fail to support a conclusion of inherent prejudice, warranting a federal evidentiary hearing. As already discussed, counsel's unsupported, unsworn, and conclusory allegations do not provide sufficient basis for an evidentiary hearing. Phillips, 267 F.3d at 973; Coleman, 874 F.2d at 1284-85. 67 Even assuming that Ingber's comments could provide a basis for an evidentiary hearing, his comments do not compel a different conclusion than the one we have reached based upon Wiseman's declaration because the comments do not necessarily present a different picture of Williams's trial than Wiseman's more specific account of the stations generally assumed by the four uniformed marshals. Although Ingber identified more security personnel than Wiseman, Ingber's count includes an undisclosed number of plain-clothed security guards. When security personnel are in plain clothes, they are not easily identified by jurors as guards and thus do not create the same risk of impermissible juror inferences. See Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 568-70, 572, 106 S.Ct. 1340 (addressing the risk of prejudice from the conspicuous, or at least noticeable, deployment of identifiable guards in uniform, and expressing a preference that officers providing courtroom security in federal courts not be easily identifiable by jurors as guards). Because the eight or nine deputy sheriffs that Ingber identified include plain-clothed guards, the scene that Ingber portrays is not necessarily any more inherently prejudicial than Wiseman's account of the four uniformed marshals at trial. 68 Any prejudice that Williams might have suffered from the presence of plain-clothed security guards at his trial cannot be attributed to inherently prejudicial courtroom procedures, but only to Ingber's statements calling the jury's attention to the guards' presence. Williams, however, cannot rely upon any prejudice from his trial counsel's statements implying extraordinary courtroom security measures to support his habeas claim that the security measures at trial impermissibly undermined the presumption of his innocence. See Morgan, 946 F.2d at 1465 (when defense counsel refused the opportunity to limit the implication that the security measures taken at trial were extraordinary, the petitioner could not use that decision to argue impermissible jury inferences). 69 We conclude that Williams has failed to allege facts that, if proven, would demonstrate that an excessive use of conspicuous security guards at his trial unconstitutionally deprived him of a fair trial. Accordingly, we decline Williams's request that we order an evidentiary hearing on his excessive security claim. See Laboa, 224 F.3d at 981 n. 7. The district court properly granted the state's motion for summary judgment on the claim. 70