Opinion ID: 1212322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Shackling During the Sentencing Phase

Text: Whatley argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to his being placed in visible shackles during the sentencing phase, including during his physical demonstration of his version of events for the jury. [35] The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2005, well after Whatley's trial and direct appeal, that visibly shackling a defendant during the sentencing phase is unconstitutional unless the record shows `an essential state interest'  such as the interest in courtroom security-specific to the defendant on trial. [36] The Warden argues that counsel should not be regarded as having performed deficiently by failing to object to the shackling, because the practice had not yet been established as unconstitutional. [37] However, at the time of Whatley's trial, this Court had already strongly suggested in dictum that it was unconstitutional to place visible shackles on a death penalty defendant during the sentencing phase without a showing of particular need. [38] We therefore assume, at least for the purpose of this discussion, that trial counsel performed deficiently in failing to recognize the legal basis for an objection to visible shackling in the sentencing phase. On direct appeal where unconstitutional shackling has occurred, there is a presumption of harm that can be overcome only upon a showing by the State that the shackling was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. However, where, as here, the issue is the ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to object to such shackling, the petitioner is entitled to relief only if he or she can show that there is a reasonable probability that the shackling affected the outcome of the trial. [39] In view of the balance of the evidence presented at his trial, we conclude as a matter of law that Whatley cannot show that his trial counsel's failure to object to his shackling in the sentencing phase in reasonable probability affected the jury's selection of a sentence.