Gary Green v. Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment
Whether the state court's finding that the defendant was not prejudiced by being shackled in front of the jury, despite juror testimony that they saw the shackles, is an unreasonable determination of the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) and whether the defendant has rebutted the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)
QUESTION PRESENTED 1. In Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), this Court held that shackling a defendant in front of the jury is inherently prejudicial and violates due process unless the state demonstrates a “special need” to justify the shackling. No special need was shown in Green’s case, but he was shackled, nonetheless. Two jurors testified that they saw Green in shackles during the trial, but Green’s trial attorneys claimed that this “would not have been possible” because Green: (1) never entered or exited the courtroom while the jury was present, and (2) sat behind a table with a backing that extended to the floor. The state court agreed with the beliefs of the trial attorneys instead of what the jurors said they saw. The district court and Fifth Circuit concluded that the “evidence (that two jurors saw the shackling) was not so contrary to the state court’s findings” that the decision can be overturned. Question presented: Under Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), shackling a defendant in front of the jury is inherently prejudicial and violates due process unless the state demonstrates a “special need” to justify the shackling. Absent such justification, if jurors testify that they saw the defendant in shackles but the state court finds that witnesses who believe that it was not possible for the jurors to have seen the shackles are more credible, (1) is this decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding per 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); and (2) has the defendant met the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence per 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)?