trial.” The court repeatedly made clear that none of these measures had anything to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendants, and it confirmed several times that the veni-re members understood the instructions. Appellants now claim that these extra security measures — especially in combination with the jury’s sequestration and anonymity-denied them a fair trial by signaling to the jurors that the defendants were dangerous and most likely guilty. They correctly point out that the constitutional presumption of innocence may be undermined by the physical indicia of guilt; criminal defendants do have a right to be free of court-imposed physical appearances that are unfairly suggestive of their guilt. See, e.g., Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, this “does not mean ...
holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population holding unconstitutional a requirement that defendant appear in prison garb at trial holding that dismissal for failure to appear at a deposition is on the merits holding that the defendants oral promise to appear was insufficient to amount to a required appearance within the meaning of the failure to appear statute holding that despite failure to appear for trial default could not be entered without notice to defendant