798 F.3d 442
6th Cir.2015Background
- Shannon Keys was convicted (2005, Michigan) of second-degree murder, conspiracy to commit unarmed robbery, and assault with intent to rob while armed; sentenced to life (habitual-offender status).
- Facts: Keys helped plan and drive co-conspirators to the victim’s home; another participant (Gordon) entered alone and shot the victim during the robbery. Keys repeatedly told co-conspirators not to use a gun, but witnesses testified Gordon had a gun on an earlier attempt and was seen with weapons and disguise on the night of the killing.
- At voir dire Keys was brought into the courtroom visibly shackled (hand restraints and belly restraint) for ~90 minutes; the trial court denied a mistrial and did not give a curative instruction specifically about shackles.
- Keys raised three habeas claims: (1) insufficient evidence for murder and armed-assault convictions; (2) due process violation because jurors saw him shackled during voir dire; (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to develop the shackling claim.
- The Michigan courts and the federal district court denied relief; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying AEDPA deference and Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency review and analyzing Deck v. Missouri on shackling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree murder and assault while armed | Keys: No direct evidence he knew Gordon would use a gun on March 12; he repeatedly discouraged use of a gun, so no intent or malice | State: Circumstantial evidence (Keys saw gun earlier, planned robbery, changed plan leaving Gordon as lone entrant) supports inference Keys knew of and should have anticipated an armed robbery and its lethal risk | Affirmed: Viewing evidence in prosecution's favor and under AEDPA/Jackson, reasonable juror could infer Keys’ awareness and culpability; state court decision not unreasonable |
| Voir dire shackling — due process / impartial jury | Keys: Jurors saw him shackled → inherent prejudice; Deck presumption of prejudice should apply | State: Shackling was inadvertent, brief; Deck’s narrow holding (penalty-phase capital cases) does not clearly establish a presumption here; petitioner must show actual prejudice | Affirmed: Not all fairminded jurists would say Deck clearly requires automatic reversal for brief, inadvertent voir dire shackling; habeas relief denied |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to develop shackling claim | Keys: Appellate counsel failed to investigate and present juror affidavits showing jurors saw shackles | State: Michigan courts assumed jurors saw shackles but found no prejudice; additional affidavits would not change outcome given overwhelming evidence | Affirmed: Keys failed to show counsel’s omission was outcome-determinative under Strickland standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (visible shackling is inherently prejudicial; government must show harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt in capital penalty-phase context)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA relief available only where state-court decision is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (defining "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" under AEDPA)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard where government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that error did not contribute to verdict)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- White v. Woodall, 134 S.Ct. 1697 (2014) (distinguishing application vs. extension of Supreme Court rules under AEDPA)
- Mendoza v. Berghuis, 544 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2008) (applies Deck presumption to guilt-phase shackling in habeas context)
- Kennedy v. Cardwell, 487 F.2d 101 (6th Cir. 1973) (brief, inadvertent courtroom view of shackles is not presumptively prejudicial; defendant must show actual prejudice)