Lawtis Donald RHODEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James ROWLAND; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding significant that jurors at evidentiary hearing six years after trial remembered seeing defendant in shackles
• finding significant that jurors at evidentiary hearing six years after trial remembered seeing defendant in shackles
• granting 13 habeas relief when the defendant was shackled in view of the jury for the duration of the trial
• “[W]hen the defendant’s shackling was not actually seen by the jury during the trial, we have held that the shackling was harmless error.”
• jurors’ nine hours of deliberation over three 11 days suggests jurors “did not find the case to be clear-cut”
• “Because visible shackling during trial is so likely to cause a defendant prejudice, it is permitted only when justified by an essential state interest specific to each trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).