Final answer:
The term 'shacking' defense does not seem to be a recognized legal argument or strategy in death penalty litigation. Instead, common defenses focus on constitutional issues and mitigating factors, with philosophical arguments like the 'Lockean defense' mainly discussed in academic settings.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question appears to be inquiring about the impact of a philosophical or legal argument, often referred to as 'shacking' defense, on death penalty litigation. This term is not a standard legal term or commonly recognized defense in death penalty cases, and it seems to be a typographical error. In death penalty litigation, defenses typically revolve around constitutional arguments, mental health considerations, the quality of legal representation, and various other mitigating factors. High-profile philosophical defenses, such as those derived from John Locke's theories of justice and government, which could be interpreted as a 'Lockean defense', have been discussed academically but are not typically used directly in court cases in this context.