I will give you the benifit of the doubt that you typed this before you fully thought out what it is you are saying.
If man is being brought into the court house in a prison uniform and is handcuffed and is guarded by armed guards, the presumption is already there that he is potentially dangerous. How is taking away this clock of privacy (except for attorney client privilage) is any worse then the previous mentioned conditions?
The assumption of innocent until proven guilty is one thing, this has to do with any punishment the state may apply to an individual.
The presumption someone is harmless is another thing, especially when the facts indicate the prisoner isn't harmless.
Maintaining security and control of a prisoner is not "punishment" for a crime.
If correct procedures were set in dealing with this guy, then nothing would have happened. The problem wasnt a video camera not being in his cell, nobody was watching anyways, the problem was proper safety precautions werent being used on the guy.