That's how it is here as well; We are in a huge 5-county circuit, covering almost 6,000 square miles, and about 20 years ago the chief judge for the circuit took a US Marshal's Service security assessment that said that only bailiff personnel were to be armed and mandated that this was the recommended course of action for the circuit; some of the senior circuit judges went with it as it stood , but a few judges simply had every single LEO who came through the door declared a "bailiff" , so they could still carry; those judges said that they wanted every armed cop they could get in their court...of course, most of the judges are armed themselves.....There are certain courts in my jurisdiction where we have to lockup our weapons in the bailiff's office before entering the courtroom to testify. It is a hassle but we have to do it.
We're pretty sure it is a power thing and not a prejudiced jury/security thing since not every court is like that.
To try to explain the opposite perspective, when a judge allows a police officer to testify in uniform, then that doesn't really imply that the court trusts the police-uniformed witness any more than anybody else.On the one hand, the judge rules the courtroom...
On the other hand... the whole "seeing witnesses testifying while carrying a gun" doesn't make any sense whatsoever, especially if LEO is in uniform. People are kinda used to seeing LEOs in uniform AND having a gun on their hip... so the judge's reasoning doesn't really hold water.
Ultimately, however... the judge rules the courtroom...