Brown v. Davenport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brown v. Davenport
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 5, 2021
Full case nameMike Brown, Acting Warden v. Ervine Davenport
Docket no.20-826
Questions presented
May a federal habeas court grant relief based solely on its conclusion that the Brecht v. Abrahamson test is satisfied, as the Sixth Circuit held, or must the court also find that the state court's Chapman v. California application was unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), as the Second, Third, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held?
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett

Brown v. Davenport is a case pending before the United States Supreme Court. The petition was granted by the court on April 5, 2021.[1] Oral arguments were heard on October 5, 2021.[2] The case concerns whether habeas relief may be granted if the Brecht v. Abrahamson test alone is satisfied, or if the application of Chapman v. California by the state courts was unreasonable because of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).[3]

Background[]

In 2008, Ervine Davenport was convicted of first-degree murder. His conviction was challenged because during his trial he had been placed in shackles. His wrists, waist, and ankles were all restrained, but there was a curtain to prevent the jury from seeing the shackles. The state said that although the shackles were unconstitutional, they did not effect the jury's verdict.[4] Michigan's Court of Appeals agreed with the state. The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed, however, after several jurors testified that they had seen the shackles or heard comments about them, and then sent the case back to the lower courts. The lower court again determined that the shackles did not affect the verdict, and the appellate court agreed with the state once again, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied an appeal.[5]

Davenport then challenged his conviction in the federal courts. The district court refused to hear the case. He then petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which agreed the hear the case. This appeals court cited the Deck v. Missouri decision, and quoted from Holbrook v. Flynn: "shackling is inherently prejudicial".[6] The court found that the state had not met the burden of proof necessary to show that the jury was not influenced by the shackling, and provided habeas relief.[5][7][8] The state attempted to have the decision stayed, but the court declined.[9]

References[]

  1. ^ Bricker, Marielle. "SCOTUS issues opinion, accepts case – Ballotpedia News". Retrieved July 21, 2021.
  2. ^ "Cases on Boston Marathon bomber, CIA secrets headline October argument calendar". SCOTUSblog. July 13, 2021. Retrieved July 21, 2021.
  3. ^ "Brown v. Davenport". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 20, 2021.
  4. ^ "Court to take up case on "harmless error" standard in habeas proceedings". SCOTUSblog. April 5, 2021. Retrieved July 21, 2021.
  5. ^ a b "Brown v. Davenport". Oyez.
  6. ^ Stranch, Jane (June 30, 2020). "Ervine Davenport v. Duncan MacLaren" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. No. 17-2267: 2 – via govinfo.gov.
  7. ^ "An important right-to-carry case, and another close look at a Sixth Circuit decision granting habeas relief". SCOTUSblog. March 31, 2021. Retrieved July 21, 2021.
  8. ^ "Kalamazoo murder conviction set aside; Ervine Davenport was shackled at trial". WWMT. Associated Press. September 19, 2020. Retrieved July 23, 2021.
  9. ^ Stranch (November 24, 2020). "ERVINE LEE DAVENPORT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DUNCAN MACLAREN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. No. 17-2267: 1–2 – via govinfo.gov.
Retrieved from ""