May trial spectator conduct, in the form of content-based messaging, be 'so inherently prejudicial as to pose an unacceptable threat' to the fair-trial and confrontation rights guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In the case at bar, a group of trial spectators wearing jackets bearing the message, “Bikers Against Child Abuse,” encircled, counseled, and prayed with the teenage witness in the hallway, accompanied her into the courtroom, and observed the proceedings. In finding no constitutional violation, a California court of appeal disagreed with the majority of a Florida court of appeal, which had found the trial presence of Bikers Against Child Abuse “inherently prejudicial,” in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Long v. State, 151 So.3d 498 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (citing, e.g., Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 572 (1986), Norris v. Risley, 918 F.2d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1990)). The questions presented are: 1. May trial spectator conduct, in the form of content-based messaging, be “so inherently prejudicial as to pose an unacceptable threat” to the fairtrial and confrontation rights guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? 2. If the presence of trial spectators declaring themselves, “Bikers Against Child Abuse,” is not “inherently prejudicial,” must the Government nevertheless prove it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, by demonstrating, inter alia, it could not have intimidated the jury or unfairly bolstered a witness’s credibility in a manner that could affect the outcome of the trial? i