Ziegler v. Schwochert, 2:13-cv-00609

Scott Edward Ziegler filed a 28 U.S.C. §2254 petition challenging state convictions for multiple sexual-assault and related offenses; federal petition filed May 31, 2013.
This Court stayed initial federal proceedings while state collateral review proceeded; later concluded federal claims were exhausted and set briefing; most claims were later dismissed as procedurally defaulted, leaving two federal issues.
Remaining claims: (1) trial court required Ziegler to wear a concealed stun device (leg strap) during trial; (2) prosecution introduced Ziegler’s booking (mugshot) photo to assist witness identifications after he lost substantial weight.
Trial record: judge and sheriff explained stun device was intended to avoid visible restraints; judge and defense acknowledged no visible restraints and defense did not object at trial to the device; Ziegler had lost ~100 pounds since arrest and some witnesses could not ID him in court.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court found the stun device was not visible and upheld admission of the booking photo as necessary to aid identification; Ziegler sought federal habeas relief, arguing due process and Sixth Amendment violations.
District Court applied AEDPA deferential review and denied habeas relief, concluding the state-court decisions were not unreasonable; declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of stun device during trial	Forcing Ziegler to wear a stun belt/strap (even hidden) violated due process and the right to counsel/presence	Device was not visible; used to avoid visible shackles; no evidence it interfered with counsel or defense	Denied — state court reasonably found device not visible and no constitutional violation under Deck/Allen; speculative claims insufficient under AEDPA
Admission of booking (mugshot) photo	Publication of booking photo was unduly prejudicial and violated due process (invoking Harrington)	Photo was necessary to help witness identifications after weight loss; not unfairly suggestive; identity was not disputed	Denied — admission not so egregiously prejudicial as to violate due process; demonstrable need and manner of use acceptable under governing precedent
Certificate of appealability (COA)	Ziegler contended issues merited appellate review	Respondent argued state-court rulings reasonable; no debatable constitutional error	Denied — no reasonable jurist would debate that §2254 relief is unwarranted

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (visible physical restraints prohibited absent case-specific, court-found justification)
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (visible shackling can prejudice jury and impair presence and communication with counsel)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference; state-court factual/legal determinations presumed reasonable)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) ("unreasonable application" under §2254(d)(1) requires more than an incorrect application)
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007) (state-court factual findings presumed correct absent clear and convincing evidence)
Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37 (2012) (circuit decisions cannot create "clearly established" Supreme Court law for AEDPA purposes)
United States v. Roux, 715 F.3d 1019 (7th Cir.) (admission of arrest photos to aid identification after defendant’s weight loss affirmed)
Stephenson v. Neal, 865 F.3d 956 (7th Cir.) (visible stun belt during penalty phase implicated counsel performance and prejudice in capital case)