Walker v. Martel, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35908

Walker was sentenced to death in 1980 after convictions for first degree murder and related crimes; California Supreme Court affirmed in 1988.
Petitioner’s state habeas petitions were denied; federal petitions followed with multiple procedural rulings and discovery.
This court considered shackling-related claims (Claims 2 and 9) and resolved other claims in prior orders; a live evidentiary hearing was not held.
Petitioner was visibly shackled with a leg brace during guilt and penalty phases; no on-record finding justified shackling; several jurors observed the restraints.
The court granted relief on Claim 2 (ineffective assistance for not objecting to shackling) and Claim 9 (stand-alone shackling claim), vacating the death judgment; other claims were denied or dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel's performance deficient for failing to object to shackling?	Walker</i> argues Kollenborn's conduct was objectively unreasonable.	Martel</i> contends no error; possible off-record justification or strategic reason could excuse it.	Deficient performance established; objectively unreasonable under Strickland.
Did visible shackling during the guilt phase violate due process?	Shackling without justification prejudiced the jury and violated due process.	State arguments about security or strategic considerations lack sufficient record support.	Yes; prejudicial due process violation found.
Did visible shackling during the penalty phase violate due process?	Shackling during penalty phase could skew jurors' perception of danger and mitigated factors.	No clear error if outweighed by aggravation evidence or strategic considerations.	Yes; prejudicial due process violation found.
Was Claim 9 procedurally defaulted and can be heard by cause-and-prejudice?	Cause and prejudice excused default due to ineffective assistance on shackling claim.	Default should foreclose merits unless cause and prejudice shown.	Cause and prejudice established; Stand-alone shackling claim considered on the merits.

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2005) (visible shackling violated due process absent compelling state interests)
Rhoden v. Rowland, 172 F.3d 633 (9th Cir. 1999) (appearance of shackling and prejudice to guilt/penalty phases)
Dyas v. Poole, 317 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) (lengthy deliberations and lack of overwhelming evidence indicate prejudice from shackling)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance plus prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (unreasonable application of law requires substantial justification for state court decisions)