Danny Wilber v. Randall Hepp, 16f4th1232

Danny Wilber was convicted in Wisconsin state court of first-degree homicide and sentenced to life; he pursued state and federal postconviction relief, culminating in a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The State’s case relied largely on out-of-court statements and witness testimony that Wilber had been belligerent at a party and was seen with a gun; physical evidence had inconsistencies (revolver vs. reported semi-automatic, bullet fragments location, body position).
Throughout trial Wilber wore an ankle restraint concealed by table skirting and a hidden stun belt; on the final day, before closing arguments and jury instructions, the judge ordered visible wrist/shoulder restraints and secured Wilber to a wheelchair.
The judge justified escalated restraints by citing Wilber’s repeated disrespect, outbursts, and an altercation with deputies (mostly occurring outside the jury’s presence), plus general security concerns; the court refused to conceal the new restraints.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the restraint decision without explaining why the restraints had to be visible; the federal district court granted habeas relief under Deck v. Missouri for the visible-shackling due-process violation and found Wilber showed prejudice on habeas; the Seventh Circuit affirmed the grant as to shackling but upheld state-court sufficiency-of-evidence rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Visible shackling / due process (Deck)	Wilber: judge ordered visible restraints without case-specific justification; visibility at closing was inherently prejudicial	State: judge reasonably exercised discretion given disruptive behavior and security concerns; appellate affirmation sufficient	Court: state court unreasonably applied Deck by failing to explain why restraints had to be visible; habeas grant affirmed and new trial ordered unless state retries
Sufficiency of evidence (Jackson)	Wilber: physical evidence and lack of eyewitness trial testimony made conviction unsupported	State: out-of-court statements, witness testimony about seeing a gun and aggressive conduct sufficed for a reasonable jury	Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably applied Jackson; evidence sufficient to support conviction
Harmless/prejudice standard on habeas (Brecht vs Chapman)	Wilber: Deck treats visible shackles as inherently prejudicial (Chapman burden on State on direct review)	State: in habeas proceedings Brecht harmless-error standard applies; State urged deference	Court: Brecht applies on habeas; nevertheless Wilber met Brecht by raising grave doubt that visible shackles had substantial/injurious effect

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (visible shackling prohibited absent case-specific, trial-related justification; inherently prejudicial)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (conviction must be sustained if evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to prosecution, permits a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas harmless-error standard: petitioner must show substantial or injurious effect; ‘‘grave doubt’’ formulation)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (on direct review, State must prove constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986) (distinguishes visible shackles/jail clothes from presence of security officers; different inferences for jurors)
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (removal or binding/gagging of disruptive defendant generally disfavored; use only as last resort)
Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (compelling defendant to wear jail clothing undermines presumption of innocence)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless-error principles origin and substantial/injurious effect standard)