ability to consult with their counsel and participate in their defense. Absent any indication that the presence of the shackles and ta-sers contributed in any way to the verdict obtained, any error on the part of the district court in ordering these restraints as a security measure would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellants also fail to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the presence of additional law enforcement personnel and an additional metal detector at trial. The district court directed the additional law enforcement officers to be in plain clothes, and nothing in the record indicates that the jury was aware that these spectators were officers or otherwise perceived a hostile atmosphere in the courtroom. Cf. Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 570-72, 106 S.Ct. at 1346-48 (<HOLDING>). Further, the district court instructed that
holding that intentionally communicating falsehoods to the jury is inherently prejudicial the effects of which cannot be erased holding that the presence of four uniformed state troopers in the front row of the gallery was neither inherently nor actually prejudicial to the defendant holding that a bare allegation is not sufficient to prove that the defendant was actually prejudiced or that the community was so saturated with prejudicial publicity as to render the trial setting inherently suspect holding that a drug sniff outside the front door of the defendants residence was not a fourth amendment search because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy at the entrance to property that is open to the public including the front porch holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection