I notice OJ did that, and all the other inmates with him were the same.
I know in his case he might wish to appear that way, to claim the prosecutor was overzealous.
But, in general, do they have an option to put on ordinary clothes?
Do they have the option not to have their hearing on TV?
No; and in most cases, no.
It’s called a perp walk, and I’m sure Lee Harvey Oswald wished he could have declined.
Most juisdictions have very strict rules on what a defendant can wear in and outside of prison. In my hometown, the Chief of Police and a Police Officer (I knew both of them personally) claimed a prisoner (whom they both knew) had a court appearance and authorized his showing up without the “bracelets.”
Turns out the guy was going to his father’s funeral, and the laws only allowed a private viewing and that the prison be handcuffed and shackled. The two perople were both fired.
A “perp walk” implies an intentional effort to embarrass the suspect or spotlight law enforcement by purposely parading the suspect past the media. If a suspect is brought into the court house by the usual means and procedures, the fact that the media happens to be present doesn’t transform the event into a premeditated “perp walk.”
As to the OP: No, for purposes of arraignment, the inmate generally does not have the option to wear street clothes. They are only appearing very briefly (either personally at the court house, by close-circuit TV from the jail, or in an arraignment courtroom inside the jail) and there is no reason to change them into street clothes and then back into the jail uniform. A defendent does have the right to wear street clothes at trial, when his or her appearance in a jail uniform might prejudice the jury. At arraignment, however, the appearance is before the judge only, who already knows the person is in jail, so there’s no argument of prejudice. (Or no persuasive one, anyway.)
The defendant generally does not have an option to not have the proceedings televised. Generally, trials and pre-trial proceedings are open to the public and that includes the media. There are exceptions if the defendant can show cause why the proceedings should NOT be televised, but in the absence of a persuastive reason, and assuming the televising does not disrupt the proceedings, it will be allowed.
No. Don’t know about the other inmates, but OJ was in blue.
It is interesting that in the UK, accused prisoners usually appear in street clothes (sometimes provided by the prison if necessary, and are rarely handcuffed and never shackled. From a European perspective, the US procedure seems punitive and tending to create an image of pre-judged guilt.
Off course, we have our faults. Accused people must sit in the dock and not adjacent to their defence counsel.
Pjen: as Jodi said above, the prisoner outfit is just for arraignments and initial hearings, which are before a judge. At trial the defendant wears ordinary clothes of his choosing, for the very reason that you gave. If he is brought to court in handcuffs, they are taken off before the jury enters the courtroom.
The premeditation portion of the “perp walk” may be limited to legal and law enforcement usage. The media that I’m familiar with use “perp walk” to denote any time an arrestee is publicly visible regardless the intentions of the custodial agency.
There were many times I was asked to stake out the sally port of some local police department or the back of the federal building in order to get footage of someone in custody.
Yes, but it is seen on TV and might influence a jury. The equivalent of arraignment in British courts is never televised.
If a prisoner can be brought top court in street clothes for a trial, then parading a suspect in an orange jumpsuit (unfortunate Gitmo imagery) and irons is little more than prosecution grandstanding.
Except of course if the defendent declinces the street clothes he’s provided with. Defendents can also be shackled during court (even if a jury’s present) if they demonstrate that they can’t control themselves.
It’s not the prosecutor’s decision. It’s the jailer’s decision and the court’s decision.