United States v. Harold Joseph Walden, II

12 F.3d 1110 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold Joseph WALDEN, II, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50048. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 1993. Decided Dec. 1, 1993. 1 Before: BROWNING, BEEZER, and TROTT, Circuit Judges 2 MEMORANDUM * 3 * We decide de novo whether a particular courtroom procedure denied defendant a fair trial. United States v. Milner, 962 F.2d 908, 911 (9th Cir.1992); Norris v. Risley, 918 F.2d 828, 830 (9th Cir.1990). Security measures violate a defendant's right to a fair trial if they are inherently prejudicial or cause actual prejudice. Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 572 (1986); United States v. Halliburton, 870 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir.1989). Walden does not argue the security measures caused actual prejudice. Accordingly, this court must inquire whether those measures were "so inherently prejudicial as to pose an unacceptable threat to [the]…