Deck v. Missouri
544 U.S. 622 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the use of visible physical restraints on a defendant during the penalty phase of a capital trial, unless the trial court makes a case-specific determination on the record that they are justified by an essential state interest, such as courtroom security or flight risk.
Facts:
- In July 1996, Carman Deck robbed and murdered an elderly couple, James and Zelma Long.
- Deck and his sister gained entry to the Longs' home by asking for directions.
- Once inside, Deck drew a pistol, ordered the couple to lie on their bed, and proceeded to rob their house.
- After the robbery, Deck shot both victims twice in the head, killing them.
- During Deck's subsequent capital resentencing proceeding, he was required to wear leg irons, handcuffs, and a belly chain.
- These restraints were visible to the jury throughout the proceeding.
- When defense counsel objected, the trial judge stated that the shackles were appropriate because Deck had already been convicted and that his being shackled would take any fear out of the jurors' minds.
Procedural Posture:
- Carman Deck was tried for murder and robbery in a Missouri state trial court.
- Following a jury trial, Deck was convicted and sentenced to death.
- Deck appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the state.
- The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reversed the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding.
- At the new penalty phase proceeding, a jury again recommended, and the trial court imposed, a sentence of death.
- Deck, as the appellant, appealed again to the Missouri Supreme Court, arguing that being visibly shackled during the proceeding violated his constitutional rights.
- The Missouri Supreme Court, with the State of Missouri as the respondent, affirmed the death sentence.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review Deck's constitutional claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of visible shackles on a convicted defendant during the penalty phase of a capital trial, without a specific, on-the-record finding of necessity, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes. The use of visible shackles during the penalty phase of a capital trial, absent a case-specific justification, is an inherently prejudicial practice that violates a defendant's due process rights. The long-standing common law and constitutional prohibition against routine shackling during the guilt phase applies with like force to the penalty phase. This rule is grounded in three principles: 1) preserving the presumption of innocence, 2) ensuring the defendant can secure a meaningful defense and communicate with counsel, and 3) maintaining the dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings. While the presumption of innocence is no longer at issue after a conviction, the other two principles remain vital. Furthermore, visible shackles at sentencing implicate a critical, related concern: the accuracy of the jury's life-or-death decision. Shackles almost inevitably suggest to the jury that the defendant is a continuing danger to the community, which is often a statutory aggravator, thereby acting as a 'thumb on death's side of the scale.' Because this practice is inherently prejudicial, a defendant need not show actual prejudice; rather, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. The Due Process Clause does not preclude the visible shackling of a convicted murderer at the penalty phase of a capital trial. The majority's holding defies common sense, as a jury already knows the defendant has been convicted of a heinous crime and is not surprised to see him restrained for security. The historical common-law rule against shackling was based on preventing physical pain and distraction from archaic, torturous irons, a concern not present with modern restraints. There is no deeply rooted tradition or modern consensus supporting the extension of this rule to the sentencing phase. At sentencing, a defendant's desperation is at its peak, and the need for security is paramount. The Court's decision needlessly elevates amorphous concerns about decorum and hypothetical prejudice over the serious security issues facing courtrooms.
Analysis:
This decision formally extends the constitutional prohibition against routine, visible shackling from the guilt phase to the penalty phase of a capital trial. By deeming the practice 'inherently prejudicial,' the Court relieves the defendant of the difficult burden of proving specific prejudice and shifts the burden to the state to prove the error was harmless. This holding strengthens due process protections for convicted capital defendants and imposes a procedural requirement on trial courts to create an explicit, on-the-record justification for using visible restraints, grounding the decision in case-specific facts rather than general policy.
Unlock the full brief for Deck v. Missouri