Deck v. Missouri
Deck v. Missouri | |
---|---|
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Missouri Supreme Court upholds Deck's original death sentence, 994 S.W.2d 527 (1999). Three years later Deck's sentence is thrown out by the Missouri Supreme Court, 68 S.W.3d 418 (2002). Deck is sentenced to death again after being visibly shackled during this sentencing phase (2003). Missouri Supreme Court upheld this decision 136 S.W.3d 481 (2004). |
Holding | |
Unless the shackling pertains to a specific defendant for specific state interests, the Constitution forbids the shackling of a defendant in the sentencing phase of a trial. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Breyer, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg |
Dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. V, VI, VIII, XIV |
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), was a
Background
On August 27, 1996, Carman Deck (August 9, 1965 – May 3, 2022) was officially charged and arrested for six felonies. Among those felonies were a count of first-degree robbery, a count of first-degree burglary, two counts of armed criminal action, and two counts of first-degree murder. During the guilt phase of Deck's original trial, he was dressed as a normal citizen, but had leg-braces under his clothes. Deck's trial began on February 17, 1998 and within three days, he was convicted on all counts. After handing down a verdict, it took the jury only one additional day to sentence Deck to death. After the trial, Deck appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, where his conviction and sentence were upheld.[1] However, Deck was later granted a new penalty phase after he appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri on the grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.[2]
The retry of Deck's penalty phase began on April 29, 2003, where he was brought into court wearing shackles. The defense objected to Deck being visibly restrained, stating that Deck's behavior did not justify shackles. The defense stated the only justification for shackling Deck would have been if he caused a disturbance in the courtroom. However, he did not. The defense also suggested other measures that the court could have taken to ensure safety instead of shackling Deck. These measures included adding extra security guards to the courtroom, and having the people who wanted to sit in the gallery walk through metal detectors. However, the defense's objections were overruled. Deck's attorneys once again objected during
Deck appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, arguing that the shackles infringed upon his right to
Petitioner's argument
Deck and his attorneys submitted a
Deck specifically claimed that his rights to
Additionally Deck argued that his
Deck and his attorneys also argued about the burden of proof. Deck's counsel believed that the bias created by the shackles put the
Amicus curiae briefs
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Thomas H. Speedy Rice on behalf of the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers on behalf of Deck (petitioner).[3]
In their brief, the Bar of Human Rights Committee and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argued that the shackling of Deck was a human rights violation. It was also argued that the shackles violated due process and common law and that the shackles diminished courtroom dignity. Additionally, it was argued that the shackles contributed to self-incrimination, and prevented Deck from confronting witnesses against him.[4]
A brief was filed by the state of California by “Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ward A. Campbell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Catherine Chatman and Eric L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorneys General, by John W. Suthers, Interim Attorney General of Colorado.”[3] Additionally, the Attorneys General of the following states filed briefs: “Roy King of Alabama, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Steve Carter of Indiana."[3]
Opinion of the Court
Majority opinion
In a 7–2 decision, the
The Supreme Court first noted that the law (historically) has prohibited the shackling of a defendant in the guilty-innocent phase of a trial. The court also noted shackling is only allowed when there is a “special need."[3] The court explained that this concept is embedded in the law and that courts have followed this rule throughout history. The court noted that this rule was first written by William Blackstone in his 18th Century Commentaries on England. Blackstone, a politician, judge and jurist, wrote “it is laid down in our ancient books, that, though under an indictment of the highest nature, a defendant must be brought to the bar without irons, or any manner of shackles or bonds; unless there be evident danger of an escape.”[3] Next, the court looked at more recent opinions to show that this rule relates to a defendant's right to due process. The court looked at the dictum of three cases, Illinois v. Allen, Holbrook v. Flynn and Estelle v. Williams. In Allen, the Court said that trial courts should only use shackles on defendants, during the guilty phase, as a “last resort.”[6] In Holbrook, the court stated that shackling is “prejudicial” and should only be allowed when state interests are involved. Lastly, in Estelle, the court stated that making a defendant go to trial wearing prison attire threatened the “fairness of the fact-finding process” and should only be allowed when “essential state policy” justifies it.[6] The Court then established that these cases give acknowledgement to standards that are embedded in the Constitution and the law which governs in the United States. The court then tried to determine if this rule also applies to the sentencing phase of a trial, not just the guilt-innocent portion.[6]
The court established that in fact the
The Court then made it clear that the opinion of the Missouri Supreme Court did not meet the
Dissent
In the
Thomas argued that the opinion of the majority went against common sense and that the decision paid little attention to courtroom security issues. Later in his opinion, Thomas stated "there was no consensus that supports elevating the rule against shackling to a federal constitutional command."
Thomas then wrote about the notion of courtroom dignity for the convict (Deck), claiming "the power of the courts to maintain order, however, is not a right personal to the defendant, much less one of constitutional proportions…The concern for courtroom decorum is not a concern about defendants, let alone their right to due process. It is a concern about society's need for courts to operate effectively."[6] Thomas concludes by writing that the prevailing majority opinion in this case does not benefit the defendant but "risks the lives of courtroom personnel …a risk that due process does not require."[3]
Execution
Deck was sentenced to death for a third time on November 7, 2008. On April 13, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and vacated his death sentence, resentencing him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.[13] On October 19, 2020, the death sentence was reinstated following an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[14]
On January 31, 2022, the Supreme Court of Missouri set Deck's execution date for that May 3.[15] On May 2, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition to have his case stayed and Governor Mike Parson said he would allow the execution to proceed.[16] Deck was executed by lethal injection early the next evening at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center.[17]
See also
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j "On Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Missouri" (PDF). FindLaw. Retrieved October 26, 2011.
- ^ Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. 2002).
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005).
- ^ "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE BAR HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE OF ENGLAND AND WALES; AMICUS; and the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER" (PDF). 29 October 2011. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 2, 2012. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
- ^ "Deck v. Missouri". The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved October 27, 2011.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Brandon Dickerson, Bidding Farewell to the Ball and Chain: The United States Supreme Court Unconvincingly Prohibits Shackling in the Penalty Phase in Deck v. Missouri, 39 Creighton L. Rev. 741, 782 (2006).
- ^ Deck, 544 U.S. at 631.
- ^ a b Deck, 544 U.S. at 632.
- ^ Deck, 544 U.S. at 633.
- ISBN 9780735584112. Retrieved October 28, 2011.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link - ^ a b c Deck, 544 U.S. at 654 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
- ^ a b Deck, 544 U.S. at 653 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
- ^ Deck v. Steele, No. 4:12-CV-1527-CDP (Apr. 13, 2017).
- ^ "Death penalty restored against man convicted of murdering De Soto couple in 1996 | Law and order | stltoday.com". October 20, 2020.
- ^ Salter, Jim (February 2, 2022). "Execution set for man whose sentence was overturned 3 times". Associated Press. Retrieved February 2, 2022.
- ^ Bacharier, Galen (May 2, 2022). "Missouri set to execute Carman Deck, who killed two and had three death sentences overturned". Springfield News-Leader. Retrieved May 2, 2022.
- ^ Salter, Jim (May 3, 2022). "Execution of Missouri man just the 5th in US this year". Associated Press. Retrieved May 4, 2022.
External links
- Text of Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Writ of Certiorari