Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

this account was not plausible.  Ms. White’s injuries, found 
on both sides of her neck, were consistent with strangula-
tion—but  inconsistent  with  the  application  of  broad  force
across the front of her neck. 

After  a  7-day  trial,  a  jury  convicted  Mr.  Davenport  of 

first-degree murder. 

B 
On direct appeal in state court, Mr. Davenport sought to
have  his  conviction  set  aside  in  light  of  Deck  v.  Missouri, 
544  U. S.  622  (2005).    In  Deck,  this  Court  held  that  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment’s  Due  Process  Clause  generally 
forbids  shackling  a  criminal  defendant  at  trial  absent  “a
special need.”  Id., at 626.  Mr. Davenport noted that during 
his trial (but not his testimony) officials shackled one of his 
hands, his waist, and his ankles.  Those shackles may not 
have  been  visible  to  many  in  the  courtroom  because  of  a 
“privacy screen” around the table where Mr. Davenport sat.
But the trial court did not articulate on the record any spe-
cial need for its security measures. 

Ultimately, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed that the
trial  court’s  actions  violated  Deck.   At  the  same  time,  the 
court sought to apply Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 
(1967).  In Chapman, this Court held that a preserved claim
of constitutional error identified on direct appeal does not
require reversal of a conviction if the prosecution can estab-
lish that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Id.,  at  24.  To  answer  Chapman’s  question,  the  Michigan 
Supreme  Court  remanded  the  case  to  the  trial  court  with
instructions to determine whether “the jury saw the defend-
ant’s  shackles”  and,  if  so,  “whether  the  prosecution  can 
demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the shackling 
error did not contribute to the verdict against the defend-
ant.”  People  v.  Davenport,  488  Mich.  1054,  794  N. W.  2d 
616 (2011).

On  remand,  the  trial  court  conducted  an  evidentiary