Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

BROWN, ACTING WARDEN v. DAVENPORT 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

No. 20–826.  Argued October 5, 2021—Decided April 21, 2022 

Ervine Davenport was convicted of first-degree murder following a jury 
trial where, at times, he sat shackled at a table with a “privacy screen.”  
On appeal, he argued that his conviction should be set aside in light of 
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U. S. 622, in which this Court held that the Four-
teenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause generally forbids shackling 
a criminal defendant at trial absent “a special need.”  Id., at 626.  Find-
ing no “special need” articulated in the record, the Michigan Supreme 
Court  agreed  that  a  Deck  violation  had  occurred  and  remanded  the 
case to the trial court to determine under Chapman v. California, 386 
U. S. 18, whether the prosecution could establish that the Deck error 
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  On remand, the trial court 
conducted  an  evidentiary  hearing  at  which  jurors  testified  that  the 
shackles  had  not  affected  their  verdict  and  concluded that  the  State 
had carried its burden.  Mr. Davenport appealed again, and the Mich-
igan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.  The Michigan Supreme 
Court declined review. 

  Mr.  Davenport  petitioned  for  federal  habeas  relief.    The  District 
Court found relief unwarranted under the Antiterrorism and Effective 
Death Penalty Act of 1996, which limits the power of federal courts to 
issue habeas relief to state prisoners.  See 28 U. S. C. §2254(d).  A di-
vided Sixth Circuit panel reversed, declining to analyze the case under 
AEDPA.  Instead, the court held that its review was governed only by 
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, which held that a state prisoner 
seeking to challenge his conviction on the basis of a state court’s Chap-
man error must show that the error had a “ ‘substantial and injurious 
effect or influence’ ” on the trial’s outcome, id., at 637.  Persuaded that 
Mr. Davenport could satisfy Brecht, the Sixth Circuit granted federal