Brooklyn Boro

Court appearance in prison uniform not sufficient to grant new trial

March 19, 2014 By Charisma L. Miller, Esq. Brooklyn Daily Eagle
Screen Shot 2014-03-20 at 9.56.58 AM.png
Share this:

A Brooklyn federal defendant’s argument that his appearance in court while wearing a full prison jumpsuit improperly influenced the jury was undermined by the defendant’s own testimony as to his prior criminal conduct, a judge ruled.

Robert Jefferson was charged and convicted for the criminal possession of a weapon and criminal trespass after a police stop in Staten Island. Jefferson allegedly appeared for his first court appearance, in front of the jury, in a complete prison jumpsuit.   

After the end of the first trial day, Jefferson’s trial attorney made note to the court, on the record, that “Corrections refuses to give [Jefferson] his own clothes to wear to Court and he is forced to wear this state jumpsuit.”  

Subscribe to our newsletters

The presiding judge sought answers from the New York State Department of Corrections, with an officer replying that a “new order of issuance of clothes” for prisoners who are in “segregation” because of “disciplinary charges,” as Jefferson was at the time, limited Jefferson’s ability to wear street clothing.

The corrections officer noted, and the presiding judge acknowledged, that Jefferson would appear the following day in “street clothes.”

Despite appearing in civilian clothing throughout the remainder of the trial, Jefferson filed an appeal in Brooklyn’s federal court, asserting that his initial appearance in a prison jumpsuit improperly influenced the jury to vote for his conviction.

Jefferson first argued that he was compelled to wear the prison suit because of a prison disciplinary action and that compulsion was prejudicial. Eastern District Judge William Kuntz II noted that compulsion can only be found where an objection is made to the trial judge, and that after such objection, the prisoner is still in prison garb.

In other words, if Jefferson noted to the trial judge that he was incorrectly in a prison jumpsuit while the jury was present and Jefferson reappeared the next day in a prison jumpsuit, compulsion to wear prison clothing may be found and jury prejudice established.  Jefferson, however, was allowed to wear street clothes for the remainder of trial after notice had been made to his prison uniform.  

Had Jefferson’s attorney, during the first trial day, notified the court earlier of the defendant’s prison jumpsuit, the facts may have yielded a different outcome.

Jefferson also turned his argument against his trial attorney, asserting that but for his trial attorney’s late objection, the jury may not have been prejudiced by viewing Jefferson in a prison jumpsuit.

Kuntz and a commissioned Report and Recommendation concluded that because “Jefferson only appeared before the jury in prison garb for one day, he was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object.”

In fact, Kuntz ruled, if anything prejudiced Jefferson, it was Jefferson himself. “[E]ven if the jurors identified Jefferson’s jumpsuit as prison clothing, and even if they remembered that jumpsuit during their deliberations, [Jefferson]would not have been prejudiced because the jurors would have known he was incarcerated by virtue of his own testimony.”

During the trial, Jefferson would repeatedly make references to his own incarceration, often times unprompted by prosecution or defense counsel. “[T]he trial transcript…included frequent references to the Petitioner’s prior arrest, conviction for two felonies,and time in prison,” Kuntz noted in the opinion of the court.

Jefferson argued that he only made reference to his past prison stints because he was already in a prison jumpsuit, making it clear to the jury that he was, in fact, a criminal. This nonsensical legal strategy did not persuade Kuntz, who ultimately held Jefferson could not “establish a reasonable probability of acquittal were it not for his initial appearance in the prison jumpsuit.”


Leave a Comment


Leave a Comment