With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". however, prejudice is not presumed. See, e.g., Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 593 (9th Cir.2004) (juror’s viewing of defendant in handcuffs with a coat draped over his handcuffed hands as he went to or from the courtroom was not inherently or presumptively prejudicial); Ghent v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 1121, 1133 (9th Cir.2002) (no prejudice from jury’s brief glance of shackles outside of courtroom while petitioner was being transported); Rich v. Calderon, 170 F.3d 1236, 1240 (9th Cir.1999) (no constitutional error where defendant was only shackled with ankle chains during trial and shackles were behind curtain or skirt placed around the defense table to insure that they were not visible to the jury), amended, 187 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir.1999); see also Packer, 291 F.3d at 583 (<HOLDING>). When a defendant’s shackling was not actually

A: holding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to make a proper inquiry of jurors andor failing to strike jurors for cause after jurors explicitly expressed bias
B: holding that if evidence is improperly admitted but other evidence establishes essentially the same facts there is no prejudice to the accused and no reversible error
C: holding that there was no prejudice when evidence complained of would have been admissible against defendant in separate trial
D: holding that defendant who was improperly placed in a leg brace for security reasons suffered no prejudice where no jurors interviewed after trial recalled seeing the brace
D.