Man should not have been shackled at trial, top state court says, but his conviction still stands
There was some good news, some bad news and a little bit more good news from Connecticut’s top court Monday for a man convicted of burglary and assault in a 2009 trial over a violent home invasion and sentenced to 30 years.
The good news was that the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed defendant Michael Brawley should not have been shackled throughout trial, without any on-the-record finding that shackling was required, the Associated Press reports.
The bad news: The error didn’t require a new trial for Brawley, because there was no evidence that jurors saw the shackles.
However, that may not be the final answer, because the court also said in a footnote in its written opinion (PDF) that Brawley could file—and potentially win—a habeas petition, if he can prove that the jury did see his shackles.
There was disagreement between the government and the defense about what had to be proven to establish a due process violation, the AP article notes.
Although the state has the burden to establish that a jury was not prejudiced by a defendant being inappropriately shackled, that burden is imposed only after the defendant has shown that the jury saw the restraints, the supreme court said.
