Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

4 

BROWN v. DAVENPORT 

Opinion of the Court 

hearing in which it heard from all 12 jurors.  Five remem-
bered  seeing  Mr.  Davenport’s  restraints;  the  remaining 
seven did not.  All 12 testified that Mr. Davenport’s shack-
les did not enter into their deliberations or influence their 
unanimous verdict.  Based on this evidence, the trial court 
found that the State had carried its burden to show harm-
lessness beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Again,  Mr.  Davenport  appealed.    This  time,  Michigan’s
appellate courts declined to disturb the judgment.  For its 
part, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that “the prosecu-
tion proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the shackling 
error did not affect the verdict.”  People v. Davenport, 2012 
WL 6217134, *3 (Dec. 13, 2012) (per curiam).  In doing so, 
the court relied on both the jurors’ testimony and that “the
evidence  at  trial  overwhelmingly  established  defendant’s
guilt and belied his contention that he killed the 103-pound 
victim in self-defense, a theory that was explicitly disputed
by expert medical testimony.”  Id., at *2, n. 2.  The Michigan 
Supreme Court denied Mr. Davenport’s request for discre-
tionary  review.    People  v.  Davenport,  494  Mich.  875,  832 
N. W. 2d 389, 390 (2013). 

C 
Mr. Davenport next sought relief in federal district court,
filing a habeas petition in the Western District of Michigan. 
Under AEDPA, however, a federal court may disturb a final 
state-court conviction in only narrow circumstances.  As rel-
evant  here,  the  statute  provides  that,  when  a  state  court 
has already ruled on the merits of the habeas petitioner’s
claim, he must show that decision was either (1) “contrary
to” or an “unreasonable application of ” clearly established
federal law, as determined by the decisions of this Court, or 
(2) based on an “unreasonable determination of the facts” 
presented  in  the  state-court  proceeding. 
28  U. S. C. 
§ 2254(d).

The District Court found relief unwarranted under this