Opinion ID: 2508188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Full and Fair Hearing

Text: Davis asserts the trial court denied him a full and fair reference hearing because it had an actual bias against him. To support his claim Davis argues the trial court: (1) consistently ruled in favor of the State on evidentiary issues; (2) ruled that the State could ask the jurors whether seeing [Davis] in shackles influenced their verdict but it would not permit [Davis] to question jurors about possible bias; (3) entered findings directly contrary to the record; and (4) refused to enter any of [Davis's] proposed supplemental findings. [102] The State counters that Davis's claim is frivolous because there is no evidence the trial judge had any monetary, professional, or personal interest in the outcome and had no personal relationship with any of the witnesses or attorneys involved in the case. It is unquestionably true, as Davis points out, that trial before an unbiased judge is an essential element of due process. [103] At a minimum, due process requires a `fair trial in a fair tribunal,' before a judge with no actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome of his particular case. [104] There is a presumption that a trial judge properly discharged her official duties without bias or prejudice. [105] The party seeking to overcome that presumption must provide specific facts establishing bias. [106] Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid showing of bias. [107] Davis has not provided specific facts establishing that the trial judge had a personal bias against him. Instead Davis points to the record as reflective of actual bias, [108] but there is no evidence in the record that the trial judge had a personal interest in the outcome of the reference hearing or was otherwise personally prejudiced against him. Consequently, Davis has failed to establish the trial court was biased against him thereby denying him a full and fair reference hearing. We adopt the trial court's reference hearing findings with the exception that only one juror caught brief glimpses of shiny things on Petitioner's shoes which he took to be shackles on two separate occasions during the guilt phase. The reference hearing also clarifies (1) that the barrier in front of the defense counsel table was routinely checked and maintained, (2) that attorney's exercised their best efforts to ensure that Petitioner's leg restraints were not seen by any jurors, and (3) that Petitioner was dressed to conceal the appearance of the leg restraints.