Ballard Ex Rel. Mount Olive Correctional Center v. Meckling
235 W. Va. 109
| W. Va. | 2015Background
- Meckling was tried in October 2007 for abduction with intent to defile and malicious assault; jury convicted him of abduction (felony) and battery (misdemeanor) and he received a life recidivist sentence.
- He had been on bond with a no-contact condition; four days before trial the State moved to revoke bond for alleged contact with the victim and a warrant issued, but Meckling appeared at trial before being taken into custody.
- After the victim’s testimony and before lunch recess, the court ordered Meckling taken into custody; he was handcuffed in the courtroom in view of at least some jurors, then released from restraints for the remainder of trial.
- Defense moved for a mistrial; trial court denied the motion. Meckling was convicted, later admitted two prior felonies, and was sentenced.
- Meckling filed successive habeas petitions; the circuit court granted habeas in 2014, vacating convictions on due process grounds because he was briefly shackled in view of jurors; Warden Ballard appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meckling) | Defendant's Argument (Warden Ballard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether brief observation of defendant in handcuffs after trial started denied due process | Brief handcuffing in front of jurors was prejudicial and deprived Meckling of a fair trial | Linkous and other precedent allow brief, inadvertent viewing; no manifest necessity to shackle throughout trial but brief custody is different | Court reversed: brief, inadvertent view of handcuffs is ordinarily not reversible error nor grounds for mistrial absent actual prejudice |
| Whether circuit court erred by relying on cases about continuous shackling | Meckling relied on Brewster/Peacher to show any visible restraints violate rights | Warden argued those cases concern continuous restraints and are factually distinguishable | Court held Brewster/Peacher distinguishable because they address shackling for entire trial; circuit court abused discretion by treating them as controlling |
| Burden to show prejudice from juror observation of restraints | Meckling: the mere sighting caused prejudice warranting relief | Warden: defendant must affirmatively show actual prejudice; juror affidavit did not show bias | Court held defendant must show actual prejudice; juror affidavit did not demonstrate prejudice |
| Appropriate remedy and curative measures when jurors see restraints | Meckling sought reversal/vacatur | Warden noted better practice is removal of restraints and curative instruction when requested | Court reiterated better practice and that a curative instruction may be given if requested; here none was requested, and vacatur was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brewster, 164 W.Va. 173, 261 S.E.2d 77 (W. Va. 1979) (defendant tried in restraints throughout trial requires manifest necessity or reversal)
- State v. Peacher, 167 W.Va. 540, 280 S.E.2d 559 (W. Va. 1981) (physical restraints should be used only after evidentiary hearing showing necessity)
- State v. Linkous, 177 W.Va. 621, 355 S.E.2d 410 (W. Va. 1987) (jurors’ brief observation of defendant in handcuffs prior to trial is ordinarily not reversible error)
- State ex rel. McMannis v. Mohn, 163 W.Va. 129, 254 S.E.2d 805 (W. Va. 1979) (defendant has right not to be tried in identifiable prison attire)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (forcing a defendant to wear prison clothing at trial violates due process)