It seems to me that when you have someone in an orange suit that he has already lost the battle for a fair trial.
This never happens to wealthy defendents, but only those with public defenders, who don’t bother to bring the accused a decent suit.
For arraignment it’s fine. It’s been long held though, that at trial only exceptional circumstances excuse a defendant being in prison clothes or shackled.
Let me explain something.
It’s not that public defenders “don’t bother.” It’s that there is no fund from which suits for the accused can be purchased.
Often, public defenders have to watch the budget on the suits they buy for themselves. They cannot be expected to buy their clients suits out of pocket.
Totally agree.
Same argument on hospital garb and/or psych restraints on mental patients at commitment hearings.
Sorry, that post was supposed to have had “Quote message in reply” checked, the msg in question being the OP.
Would it be that hard to buy a few suits out of public funds that defendants could wear for the trial, then pass them on to the next defendant? Sort of a “suit pool.” Even a cheap, ill-fitting suit would present a better face than orange jumpsuits (or hospital garb).
I agree that it makes defendants look guilty right off the bat and that shackles shouldn’t be used except when the defendant is considered dangerous. How many times have defendants actually attacked someone in the courtroom? People place a lot of stock in physical appearance and first impressions. Jailwear presupposes guilt instead of assuming innocence. I also think it has class implications. Surely, even if they didn’t have a suit, casual clothing would look better in the eyes of a jury, and everyone has casual clothing. Is there a rule that casual clothing can’t be worn in a courtroom?
Fair enough. But the accused presumably has some clothing of his or her own, from before being arrested. That clothing might not include a three-piece suit and tie, but it’d have to be better than prison orange. Is there any reason the accused should not be allowed to wear his or her own clothing of choice?
Oh, it happens. I saw on the news, several years ago in Cleveland, a murder trial of a father and son team of hoodlums. The son went berserk in the courtroom and took a swing at the prosecutor, while his sister was heard screaming “No, Donny, no!”
Fair enough. But I’d assume that most defendants go through some kind of psych test before the arraignment, which should pinpoint any uncontrollable anger problem.
A psych test on all defendants? Ummm, you’re assumption would be wrong.
Is my understanding correct that the arraignment never takes place before a jury, but only before the judge, counsel, and any spectators or media? AFAIK the issue of courtoom attire only comes into play when they start selecting the jury, to avoid the kind of prejudicial thinking mentioned. The lawyers have already drawn sides, so to speak, and the judge has seen enough jumpsuits in his or her life for it not to be an issue.
The arraignment is not a trial where guilt or innocence is the question. An arraignment is nothing but the point at which the individual enters a plea to an indictment which is only a formal accusation.
We keep a collection of clothes in the office for indigent defendants to wear during jury trials. My co-counsel/dad is a huge bargain hunter and garage sale aficianado and has an uncanny ability to get fairly decent clothes on the cheap. If I have to, I’ll even loan a defendant my own clothes, sweetheart that I am and all. If it’s just an arraignment, pretrial, or plea or some such or some such, though, what’s the point? It’s just us and the judge, and it’s not like the judge doesn’t know the defendant’s in custody. They’re the one who arranged for the defendant to be brought over from the jail.
I hate to be the harbinger of bad tidings, but the track record for shrinks predicting dangerousness is pretty dismal. Whether it’s statistically more accurate than randomly flipping a coin is debatable.
I know one current and one former ADA (now a judge) they both have stories of buying suits for indegent clients out of thier own pockets.
Um, folks, WHAT PART OF ARRAIGNMENT ISN’T TRIAL are you all failing to comprehend? :smack:
It’s already been pointed out that, at trial, the accused is not sitting in view of the finder of fact wearing prison clothes except in the most extraordinary of circumstances. Since there is no determination at an arraignment (it’s not even a preliminary hearing), what the f*** difference would it make if he was in black suit, orange suit or birthday suit??? :rolleyes:
Nothing to add, save that this bears repeating.
I tried to find a joke about a birthday-suited defendant and a hung jury, but couldn’t make it work. Anybody?
Former prosecutor turned public defender turned back to prosecutor again checking in.
In my state, Wyoming, nobody, but nobody, no matter how rich they are who is incarcerated goes to an arraignment in anything but cuffs and orange. Nobody, but nobody, goes to trial in anything but street clothes of some kind (there are debates among my collegues if it is better to have a defendant in a suit or something more casual in court.)
And Davenport, I have been attacked on more than one occassion by a defendant in court. At the end of one murder trial, the defendant, in street clothes, picked up a 150 podium and threw it across the room at me. Ah, good times.
When it comes to criminal law, I am waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out on the side of defendants’ rights. But even I can’t see the prejudice at an arraignment. Arraignments are in front of judges, who both see dozens of defendants every day, and don’t decide guilt.
Sua