1. When a trial court unjustifiably orders a defendant shackled throughout trial contrary to the rule in Deck v. Missouri, is it the defendant who bears the burden of proving that the restraints were visible to the jury, or does the State have the burden to prove that the shackles were not visible as part of its burden under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shackling error did not contribute to the verdict?

2. When a petitioner has complied with a state rule which mandates a postconviction hearing on a colorable federal constitutional claim, but the state court dismisses the claim by resolving disputed issues of material fact against the petitioner, is the state court's denial "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts" under § 2254(d)(2), thereby requiring de novo federal review of the claim?

When a trial court unjustifiably orders a defendant shackled throughout trial contrary to the rule in Deck v. Missouri, is the burden on the defendant to prove the restraints were visible to the jury, or on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the shackling error did not contribute to the verdict?