was not necessary. Moreover, he claims, their presence destroyed any presumption of their innocence and led the jury to think that the defendants were dangerous criminals. Mr. Treesh requests a new trial. The decisions of a district court concerning security in the courtroom are reviewed deferentially. A trial judge who is confronted with a potentially disruptive defendant or witness must consider the security of his courtroom and of all those who are in it. As we discussed in Lemons v. Skidmore, 985 F.2d 354 (7th Cir.1993), the trial judge has wide discretion in determining what is necessary to maintain the security of the courtroom. Id. at 357-58. However, decisions in this matter are the judge’s responsibility; he “may not delegate his discretion to another party.” Id. at 358 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a defendant is entitled to the
holding that an inmate has no right to any particular prison job but prison officials cannot discriminate against him on the basis of his race in work assignments holding that in prison inmate civil rights action trial judge should hold hearing to determine what if any restraints are necessary holding that a constitutional violation was too remote a consequence of the defendants action to hold them responsible under the federal civil rights law holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials