Johnny Lee Johnson, applicant-appellee/cross-appellant v. State of Iowa, respondent-appellant/cross-appellee.
2014 Iowa App. LEXIS 1205
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Johnny Johnson shot and beat to death two people (his wife and her companion) in April 2007; he confessed during police interviews and was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in 2009.
- At trial Johnson was visibly in leg shackles in the jury’s presence; no recorded on-the-record, particularized reasons for shackling were entered and trial counsel did not object (Johnson had consented at bench).
- Johnson pursued postconviction relief alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the shackling, among other claims; the postconviction court granted relief, vacated the convictions, and ordered a new trial after shifting the burden to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the shackling did not affect the verdict.
- The State appealed, arguing Strickland governs ineffective-assistance claims and the burden remains on Johnson to show prejudice (a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent counsel’s error); the State also conceded the trial court should have articulated reasons under Deck.
- Johnson cross-appealed the denial of a state-funded intoxication expert and a protective order over attorney-client materials, and claimed appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the shackling issue on direct appeal.
- The court affirmed denial of the expert and protective order, rejected preserving the appellate-ineffectiveness claim (it will be moot or subsumed), but reversed and remanded because the postconviction court applied the wrong burden: Strickland’s prejudice standard applies to an IAC claim about failure to object to shackling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deck burden-shifting applies in an IAC postconviction claim about visible shackling | Johnson: postconviction court correctly shifted burden to State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt shackling did not contribute to verdict | State: Under Strickland, applicant must show reasonable probability of different outcome; burden remains on Johnson | Court held Strickland governs; applicant must show prejudice (reasonable probability different result) and remanded for application of that standard |
| Whether trial counsel breached an essential duty by not objecting to shackling | Johnson: counsel breached duty by consenting/not objecting to visible shackles without on-record necessity | State: No objection likely would not have changed outcome given overwhelming evidence of premeditation | Court did not decide merits — remanded to postconviction court to apply Strickland prejudice analysis |
| Whether the postconviction court erred denying state-funded intoxication expert | Johnson: expert could show intoxication affecting culpability | State: Trial record showed hired expert would not support intoxication defense; new expert would be cumulative | Court affirmed denial — no abuse of discretion; expert would be redundant |
| Whether attorney-client privilege protective order should have been granted | Johnson: privilege was poisoned because State reviewed privileged materials and relief (dismissal) is warranted | State: privilege waived by raising ineffective-assistance claim in postconviction proceedings | Court affirmed denial — privilege is waived in PCR proceedings when counsel effectiveness is at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test and prejudice standard)
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (holding visible shackling in jury’s presence absent individualized necessity findings violates due process and shifts burden to government on direct review)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error standard: government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt error did not contribute to verdict)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (discussing inherently prejudicial circumstances affecting juror perceptions)
- State v. Wilson, 406 N.W.2d 442 (Iowa: shackling review requires stated reasons on record and gives State burden to justify restraints on direct appeal)
- Dickerson v. State, 269 S.W.3d 889 (Mo. 2008) (contrasting view that visible unjustified shackling automatically establishes prejudice)