Stephenson v. Wilson

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s habeas petition challenging his capital murder conviction on grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to object to govt. insistence that he wear stun belt under his clothing. Record failed to show that but for trial counsel’s failure to raise objection, result of trial would have been different where: (1) affidavits from four jurors showed only that they were aware of stun belt; (2) defendant failed to show likelihood that jury considered stun belt to be evidence of defendant’s guilt; (3) defendant’s trial counsel otherwise provided vigorous defense during eight month trial; and (4) alternatives to stun belt, such as more security guards, might have been more prejudicial to defendant. Ct. emphasized that while govt. would have been required to show that presence of stun belt did not influence guilty verdict had issue been raised on direct appeal, burden was on defendant to show prejudice in instant habeas proceeding.