ERVINE LEE DAVENPORT v. DUNCAN MACLAREN, Warden - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jun 30, 2020

Head Comment: READLER delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Tasha J. Bahal, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellant. Jared D. Schultz, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Tasha J. Bahal, Reuven Dashevsky, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellant. Aaron D. Lindstrom, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): COLE, Chief Judge; STRANCH and READLER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Ervine Lee Davenport was convicted of first-degree murder after a jury trial in Michigan state court. He challenges his conviction in a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because he was visibly shackled at the waist, wrist, and ankles during trial. The State of Michigan admits Davenport’s shackling was unconstitutional but argues that the habeas petition should be denied because this error was harmless. The district court agreed it was harmless error and denied the petition. Because “shackling is ‘inherently prejudicial,’” Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 635 (2005) (quoting Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568 (1986)), and the evidence of premeditation and deliberation necessary to a first-degree murder conviction was not overwhelming, the State has not met its burden to show the restraints did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993). We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court, GRANT Davenport a conditional writ of habeas corpus, and REMAND the case for further proceedings.

Attachments: