United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-1268 PETER WHYTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DAN WINKLESKI, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:12-cv-00486 — Nancy Joseph, Magistrate Judge. ____________________

ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 2021 — DECIDED MAY 19, 2022 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Peter Whyte of second-degree intentional homicide for killing his girlfriend. In this appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Whyte argues his constitutional rights were violated when, at trial, he was required to wear a stun belt in front of the jury. He also presses related ineffective as- sistance of counsel allegations. Because Whyte’s claims are 2 No. 21-1268 procedurally defaulted under adequate and independent state grounds, federal review is foreclosed, and we affirm the district court. I A In August 2006, Whyte and his girlfriend, Suzanne Weiland, returned to their cabin in St. Croix County, Wiscon- sin after a night of drinking. Whyte declined Weiland’s sexual advances and the couple began to quarrel. Enraged, Weiland lunged at Whyte with a knife, stabbing him in the chest. Whyte fell to the floor but was able to pull himself back up. Then Weiland attacked again, stabbing Whyte in his stomach. Whyte knocked Weiland back and pulled out the knife. Armed with a second knife, Weiland again charged at Whyte. This time, Whyte grabbed Weiland by the hand and stabbed her twice in the back with the knife he had removed from his stomach. The couple fell to the floor while attacking each other. Whyte continued to stab Weiland until she stopped struggling. Whyte passed out, and when he woke up, Weiland was dead beside him. Weiland received nineteen total stab wounds, including three to her neck severe enough to have caused her death within minutes. Whyte was stabbed eight to ten times. The physician who performed Weiland’s autopsy testified that she died with a 0.31 blood alcohol concentration. 1 Weiland, five feet, seven inches in height and weighing 150 pounds, was

1That is, .31 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. In compari- son, Wisconsin’s legal limit for driving a motor vehicle is a blood alcohol concentration of .08. The record is unclear as to Whyte’s blood alcohol con- centration at the time. No. 21-1268 3 notably smaller than Whyte, who measured six feet, four inches and weighed 283 pounds. Whyte was charged with first-degree intentional homi- cide. At trial, Whyte did not dispute that he killed Weiland, but raised self-defense—that he reasonably believed he was using the force necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. During trial Whyte was required to wear a stun belt, “used to restrain prisoners, often in courtrooms where a prisoner who acts up can frighten and even injure jurors, the judge, the lawyers, and spectators.” Stephenson v. Neal, 865 F.3d 956, 958 (7th Cir. 2017). When used in court, “an officer is authorized to send an electric shock to a box on the stun belt that contains electrical wires, should the prisoner become violent or other- wise disrupt the proceeding; the shock disables the prisoner from acting up.” Id. The judge preapproved a request from the sheriff’s office for Whyte to wear the stun belt at trial. The sheriff’s office requested the device “out of an abundanc