By: Derek Hawkins//August 8, 2017//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: John M. Stephenson v. Ron Neal, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison
Case No.: 16-1312
Officials: BAUER, POSNER, and FLAUM, Circuit Judges
Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Jury Instructions
Although in this appeal Stephenson’s lawyer mounts a vigorous challenge to both the murder conviction and the death sentence, the first challenge fails. Not that there isn’t evidence that might have convinced a jury to acquit. There is no evidence that the defendant was at all likely to act up at the penalty phase of his trial, or at any other phase. He’s been in prison for twenty years now, and there is no suggestion that he has behaved violently during that period, and certainly he has not in any of his subsequent court appearances. The fault is certainly not Stephenson’s; it’s his lawyer’s, for failing to object to his client’s having to wear a stun belt, given the absence of any reason to think his client would go berserk in the courtroom. See Wrinkles v. Buss, 537 F.3d 804, 813–15 (7th Cir. 2008).
The possibility that the defendant’s having to wear the stun belt—for no reason, given that he had no history of acting up in a courtroom—contaminated the penalty phase of the trial persuades us to reverse the district court’s denial of Stephenson’s petition for habeas corpus and to remand with directions to vacate his sentence. After the completion of these proceedings, Indiana may choose to seek the death penalty anew and hold a new penalty hearing before a jury without Stephenson wearing the stun belt, or to seek a lesser sentence and hold a penalty hearing before a judge. The court’s refusal to vacate his conviction, however, is affirmed.
Affirmed