erred in denying the Defendant’s request to sit at counsel table. See Davis, 466 S.W.3d at 61. However, we must determine whether the trial court’s error “more probably than not affected the judgment or would result in prejudice to the judicial process.” ' Tenn. R.App. P. 36(b). The Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the effect of the error in this case. See Rodriguez, 264 S.W.3d at 371-72 (stating that the defendant bears the burden of establishing the effect of a non-constitutional error). We conclude that the Defendant has, failed to meet that burden. As stated previously, the Defendant was seated behind his attorney during trial. Although the Defendant argues to the contrary, this seating arrangement did not impair his presumption of innocence. See Rice, 184 S.W.3d at 675 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the seating arrangement did not
holding sheriff not a prosecutor even though he sat at counsel table with the district attorney holding that petitioners challenge to jury instructions in light of some new cases did not demonstrate his actual innocence because petitioner only asserts legal innocence not actual innocence holding that seating arrangement in which the defendant sat in row behind counsel table did not impair the defendants presumption of innocence holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify holding government agent to be an arm of the prosecutor where he 1 actively participated in the investigation 2 supervised a confidential informant and 3 sat throughout trial at counsel table with the prosecutors