John Stephenson v. Ron Neal
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14363
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- In March 1996 three people were killed in southern Indiana; John Stephenson was charged with murders and related theft of ammunition used in the crime.
- At trial Stephenson was convicted after an ~8-month trial; jury recommended death at a short penalty hearing and judge sentenced him to death.
- Postconviction and direct appeals in Indiana courts affirmed conviction and sentence. Stephenson then obtained federal habeas relief in district court based on ineffective assistance for failure to object to his wearing a visible stun belt; district court vacated conviction and sentence.
- The Seventh Circuit initially reversed in part, remanding to consider prejudice from the stun belt at the penalty phase; on remand the district court found no prejudice and denied habeas relief.
- The Seventh Circuit affirms denial of a new guilt-phase trial (rejecting claims based on new witness evidence and juror misconduct) but reverses the denial of habeas relief as to the penalty phase because visible use of a stun belt likely prejudiced the jury and counsel should have objected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether new evidence and witness recantations require a new guilt-phase trial | Stephenson: new witness testimony and inconsistencies create reasonable doubt of guilt | State: trial evidence (eyewitnesses, forensic matches) supports conviction; new evidence is unreliable | Denied — inconsistencies but insufficient to establish innocence or warrant new trial |
| 2. Juror misconduct at guilt phase (foreman acquaintance; pre-trial bar-fight talk) | Stephenson: misconduct deprived him of an impartial jury | State: trial court’s reasonable inquiry found no prejudice; extensive trial record supports verdict | Denied — no basis to overturn state court’s prejudice finding |
| 3. Whether counsel’s failure to object to visible stun belt at penalty phase was ineffective assistance and prejudiced sentencing | Stephenson: visible stun belt signaled dangerousness, affected demeanor, and likely influenced brief penalty hearing toward death | State: crime’s severity was dominant sentencing factor; stun belt did not alter outcome | Granted as to penalty phase — court finds reasonable probability of prejudice; counsel erred by not objecting |
| 4. Remedy: vacate conviction and/or sentence; retrial or new penalty hearing | Stephenson: seeks relief for both guilt and penalty phases | State: contends only penalty phase, if any, should be affected | Court: affirms conviction; reverses denial of habeas as to sentence and directs district court to vacate death sentence and permit new penalty proceedings without visible stun belt |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephenson v. Wilson, 619 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2010) (prior Seventh Circuit opinion addressing stun-belt ineffective-assistance claim)
- Wrinkles v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind. 2001) (recognizing psychological impact and trial-participation problems from stun belts)
- Wrinkles v. Buss, 537 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2008) (discussing prejudice from visible restraints and counsel’s duty to object)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (standard for habeas claims based on newly discovered evidence of innocence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel—performance and prejudice standard)