William D. Mello v. Charles D. Marshall

52 F.3d 334 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. William D. MELLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee. No. 93-55940. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 5, 1995. * Decided April 7, 1995. Before: NOONAN, O'SCANNLAIN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 California state prisoner William Mello appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that accomplice Lawrence Modesto's brief presence at Mello's trial in prison clothing and shackles denied him a fair trial. In order to prevail on his claim, Mello had to prove that the appearance was either inherently prejudicial or actually prejudicial to his fair trial rights. See Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 572 (1986). The brief or inadvertent presence of a witness or defendant in jail clothing or shackles is not inherently prejudicial. United States v. Halliburton, 870 F.2d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir.), cert.…