Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of shackling a prisoner during the sentencing phase of a trial.

[1] However, Deck was later granted a new penalty phase after he appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri on the grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.

These measures included adding extra security guards to the courtroom, and having the people who wanted to sit in the gallery walk through metal detectors.

[1] Deck appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, arguing that the shackles infringed upon his right to due process, equal protection, right to confront evidence against him, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (prescribed from Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution).

[1] Deck and his attorneys submitted a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to try to get his death sentence thrown out.

As a result, his right to confront witnesses as stated in the 6th Amendment (as well as the requirement of an impartial jury) were violated by the shackles.

[1] It was argued that the shackles limited Deck from freely conversing with his counsel, and that they prevented him from taking the stand to defend himself.

The defense wrote that this would increase the chances of Deck being sentenced to death by the jury which made the shackling unconstitutional.

The opinion, written by Justice Breyer, made it clear that shackling a defendant during the sentencing portion of a trial does violate the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

[5] The Supreme Court first noted that the law (historically) has prohibited the shackling of a defendant in the guilty-innocent phase of a trial.

Blackstone, a politician, judge and jurist, wrote “it is laid down in our ancient books, that, though under an indictment of the highest nature, a defendant must be brought to the bar without irons, or any manner of shackles or bonds; unless there be evident danger of an escape.”[3] Next, the court looked at more recent opinions to show that this rule relates to a defendant's right to due process.

[6] The Court then established that these cases give acknowledgement to standards that are embedded in the Constitution and the law which governs in the United States.

[6] The court established that in fact the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments prohibits the shackling of a defendant during the sentencing phase of a trial.

The court stated, “The routine use of shackles in the presence of juries would undermine these symbolic yet concrete objectives.”[7] By making these conclusions about shackling a defendant, the court ruled “the considerations that militate against the routine use of visible shackles during the guilt phase of a criminal trial apply with like force to penalty proceedings in capital cases.”[8] This deals with the fact the in these cases, the jury is still deciding between life and death and that this is a decision of equal importance compared to the question of innocence and guilt.

The opinion of the Court permits a judge to use discretion to shackle a defendant under certain circumstances, including protecting people in the courtroom.

[12] Thomas argued that the opinion of the majority went against common sense and that the decision paid little attention to courtroom security issues.

Later in his opinion, Thomas stated "there was no consensus that supports elevating the rule against shackling to a federal constitutional command.

[6] Thomas then wrote about the notion of courtroom dignity for the convict (Deck), claiming "the power of the courts to maintain order, however, is not a right personal to the defendant, much less one of constitutional proportions…The concern for courtroom decorum is not a concern about defendants, let alone their right to due process.

[15] On May 2, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition to have his case stayed and Governor Mike Parson said he would allow the execution to proceed.

[16] Deck was executed by lethal injection early the next evening at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center.