How have courts dealt with the issue of physical restraint in the context of assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a dagger in prison?

On appeal, defendant argues the trial court's order constituted an abuse of discretion in violation of the principles set forth in People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282, 127 Cal.Rptr. 618, 545 P.2d 1322.

[151 Cal.App.3d 192] In Duran, a defendant charged with assault with a deadly weapon by a life-term prisoner (Pen.Code, 4500) and possession of a dirk or dagger when confined in prison (Pen.Code, 4502), was shackled, apparently only because he was an inmate. (Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 293, 127 Cal.Rptr. 618, 545 P.2d 1322.) The court held the trial court must make the decision to use physical restraints on a case-by-case basis and found the error, combined with others in the case, prejudicial under the test of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 299 P.2d 243. (Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 296, 127 Cal.Rptr. 618, 545 P.2d 1322.)