Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

BROWN v. DAVENPORT 

Syllabus 

denied a fair trial due to the prejudicial effect of supplemental court-
room security on the jury.  Id., at 562.  The language in Holbrook Mr. 
Davenport highlights casts doubt only on attempts to assess trial prej-
udice based on speculative testimony by prospective jurors.  Nothing 
in Holbrook is inconsistent with the Michigan Court of Appeals’ reli-
ance on post-trial testimony from actual jurors concerning the effect 
on deliberations of security measures at Mr. Davenport’s trial.  Nor did 
the Michigan court unreasonably apply Chapman when it found that 
the prosecution had established Mr. Davenport’s shackling was harm-
less beyond a reasonable doubt.  This Court cannot say that every fair-
minded  jurist  applying  Chapman  must  reach  a  different  conclusion. 
Similarly,  the  Court  cannot  say  that  every  fairminded  court  would 
have both identified and adopted Mr. Davenport’s forfeited theory that
his shackling might have influenced the jury toward a first-degree, ra-
ther than second-degree, murder conviction.  Pp. 21–25. 

964 F. 3d 448, reversed. 

GORSUCH,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined.  KAGAN, 
J.,  filed  a  dissenting  opinion,  in  which  BREYER  and  SOTOMAYOR,  JJ., 
joined.