# Holbrook v. Flynn > Supreme Court of the United States · March 26, 1986 · 475 U.S. 560 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430402 ## Case - **Full name:** HOLBROOK, SUPERINTENDENT, MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Et Al. v. FLYNN - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** March 26, 1986 - **Citations:** 475 U.S. 560; 54 U.S.L.W. 4315; 106 S. Ct. 1340; 89 L. Ed. 2d 525; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 37 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Burger - **Judges:** Marshall, Burger - **Cited by:** 967 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430402 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - concluding that, during a trial of six codefendants, the presence of “four uniformed state troopers” “quietly sitting in the first row,” in addition to two deputy sheriffs and “six Committing Squad officers,” did not create an unacceptable risk of prejudice, because “[f]our tr… - explaining that “prison clothes are unmistakable indications of the need to separate a defendant - 19 - from the community at large” and violate the right to a fair trial; therefore, courts must avoid “the sort of inherently prejudicial practice[s]” that undermine the presumpt… - explaining that “prison clothes are unmistakable indications of the need to separate a defendant from the community at large” and violate the right to a fair trial; therefore, courts must avoid “the sort of inherently prejudicial practiee[s]” that undermine the presumption of … - explaining that even if the court’s decision to allow the four uniformed police officers to be present during Holbrook’s trial did prejudice the defendant, “the State’s need to maintain custody over defendants who had been denied bail after an individualized determination that… ## Opinion text Chief Justice Burger, concurring. I write only to explain my reading of the Court’s statement that “in our supervisory capacity, we might express a prefer *573 ence that officers providing courtroom security in federal courts not be easily identifiable by jurors as guards . . . Ante, at 572 (emphasis added). In joining the opinion, I interpret the Court’s carefully qualified statement in this case — a state case — as containing no suggestion that federal officers providing security must doff their uniforms before entering federal courtrooms, and certainly none of the three cases the Court cites, ante, at 572, n. 5, would require any such arbitrary action. Moreover, the issue of what kind of security arrangements some might “prefer” is, of course, quite distinct from issues such as whether a federal defendant would become entitled to a new trial because of an alleged prejudicial effect of the security measures used at his trial. On this understanding, I join the Court’s opinion. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430402. Public record. Not legal advice.