Marvin Walker v. Michael Martel, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4631

Walker committed two armed robberies in San Jose in 1979, resulting in a murder of a 15-year-old and serious injuries to others.
During trial, a knee restraint worn under Walker's clothing was visible to jurors; no on-record finding of necessity; defense did not object.
California Supreme Court deemed any objection waived for failure to object at trial (state direct appeal).
Walker later raised ineffective-assistance claims in state and federal petitions; district court granted habeas relief on claims related to the restraint.
The warden appealed challenging only the prejudice prong under Strickland and AEDPA standards; this court reviews de novo.
The appellate court ultimately reverses the district court’s grant of the writ and remands for consideration of remaining claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state court reasonably applied Strickland for guilt phase prejudice	Walker	Martel	State court reasonable under Strickland; no prejudice
Whether the state court reasonably applied Strickland for penalty phase prejudice	Walker	Martel	State court reasonable; no prejudice
Whether Claim 9 (stand-alone shackling) is reviewable and prejudicial under Strickland/AEDPA	Walker	Martel	No cause to reach merits; no prejudice

Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA independent review of record where no reasoning given)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Premo v. Moore, 131 S. Ct. 733 (2011) (Strickland precedent governs prejudice, not other tests)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (presumed prejudice for voir dire shackling seen by jury, in certain contexts)
Dyas v. Poole, 317 F.3d 934 (2003) (Dyas factors for prejudice in shackling cases)
Roche v. Davis, 291 F.3d 473 (2002) (seventh circuit on shackling prejudice and capital sentencing)