Are tattoos prejudicial?

[chanel]

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Attorneys for a prison inmate accused of killing a guard while escaping from a Salt Lake City medical center are seeking to cover his neo-Nazi tattoos during his trial.

The attorneys say they want the tattoos on Curtis Michael Allgier's face, head, neck and hands covered up to ensure he gets a fair trial. The tattoos also include swastikas and the words "Skin Head" written across his forehead.

The 30-year-old Allgier is charged with capital murder for allegedly shooting 60-year-old Stephen Anderson in June 2007 after Anderson unshackled Allgier for an MRI scan.

FOXNews.com - Lawyers for prisoner accused of killing guard seek to cover neo-Nazi tattoos during Utah trial

 

[Madeline]

chanel, are you objecting?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

chanel, are you objecting?

I object. The man WANTS those tattoos, he should proudly display them in open Court.

 

[Madeline]

It's a weird legal question. Can he really get a fair trial with them showing? Or with them hidden?

What next? Defendant stand ins?

 

[chanel]

Tattoos are supposed to be an expression of the inner person, are they not? Yes, it's prejudicial to people who think neo-Nazism is a bad thing. But assuming that, is prejudicial as well.

 

[Toome]

The flip side question is: are lawyers being ethical when they "dress up" their defendants for the jury?

 

[George Costanza]

The flip side question is: are lawyers being ethical when they "dress up" their defendants for the jury?

You mean get them out of jail blues, handcuffs and leg shackles?

It is well established that displaying a defendant in jail blues, handcuffs, etc., in front of the jury, is prejudicial. No court will allow that to happen. It doesn't take a genius to see why such a practice would be prejudicial. So is a defense lawyer being "unethical" when he/she sees to it that the defendant is clothed in some form of civilian clothing during trial?

I have a flip side question for you: Is a prosecutor being unethical when he/she insists that the defendant not be allowed to dress in civilian clothing and have the handcuffs removed?

 

[jillian]

The flip side question is: are lawyers being ethical when they "dress up" their defendants for the jury?

You mean get them out of jail blues, handcuffs and leg shackles?

It is well established that displaying a defendant in jail blues, handcuffs, etc., in front of the jury, is prejudicial. No court will allow that to happen. It doesn't take a genius to see why such a practice would be prejudicial. So is a defense lawyer being "unethical" when he/she sees to it that the defendant is clothed in some form of civilian clothing during trial?

I have a flip side question for you: Is a prosecutor being unethical when he/she insists that the defendant not be allowed to dress in civilian clothing and have the handcuffs removed?

do prosecutors still try to object to a defendant dressing in civilian clothes and being unshakled?

i thought those days were past.

 

[Toome]

The flip side question is: are lawyers being ethical when they "dress up" their defendants for the jury?

You mean get them out of jail blues, handcuffs and leg shackles?

It is well established that displaying a defendant in jail blues, handcuffs, etc., in front of the jury, is prejudicial. No court will allow that to happen. It doesn't take a genius to see why such a practice would be prejudicial. So is a defense lawyer being "unethical" when he/she sees to it that the defendant is clothed in some form of civilian clothing during trial?

I have a flip side question for you: Is a prosecutor being unethical when he/she insists that the defendant not be allowed to dress in civilian clothing and have the handcuffs removed?

Not so much the jail blues but the whole makeover approach. I don't have a problem with having the handcuffs removed. However, I see a difference between having the defendant dress up as he or she would choose to dress and having a lawyer pick out the clothing for that person.

I understand the strategy. I think there's more of a marketing approach in order to influence the jury to a favorable decision rather than letting them make a decision based on the evidence alone.

And I also am willing to admit that while I may criticize this, I would probably take an entirely different approach if it was me sitting in the defendant's chair!

 

[syrenn]

The flip side question is: are lawyers being ethical when they "dress up" their defendants for the jury?

You mean get them out of jail blues, handcuffs and leg shackles?

It is well established that displaying a defendant in jail blues, handcuffs, etc., in front of the jury, is prejudicial. No court will allow that to happen. It doesn't take a genius to see why such a practice would be prejudicial. So is a defense lawyer being "unethical" when he/she sees to it that the defendant is clothed in some form of civilian clothing during trial?

I have a flip side question for you: Is a prosecutor being unethical when he/she insists that the defendant not be allowed to dress in civilian clothing and have the handcuffs removed?

Agreed prison garb is not fair. So how about we put them back in their gangster clothing and not a suit. Or to be fair the clothes they were picked up in as that is how they would be dressing on the street and is a very fair representation of their true selves.

Visual appearance is very important in court. You dress the low life's up and you dress down the flash and cash look. I can understand a defense lawyer wanting to cover up emotional response tattoos. Like it or not it could sway a jury.

My take on it is let him go into court all covered up with makeup and then show the jury his mug shot or other prison photos.

 

[jillian]

The flip side question is: are lawyers being ethical when they "dress up" their defendants for the jury?

You mean get them out of jail blues, handcuffs and leg shackles?

It is well established that displaying a defendant in jail blues, handcuffs, etc., in front of the jury, is prejudicial. No court will allow that to happen. It doesn't take a genius to see why such a practice would be prejudicial. So is a defense lawyer being "unethical" when he/she sees to it that the defendant is clothed in some form of civilian clothing during trial?

I have a flip side question for you: Is a prosecutor being unethical when he/she insists that the defendant not be allowed to dress in civilian clothing and have the handcuffs removed?

Not so much the jail blues but the whole makeover approach. I don't have a problem with having the handcuffs removed. However, I see a difference between having the defendant dress up as he or she would choose to dress and having a lawyer pick out the clothing for that person.

I understand the strategy. I think there's more of a marketing approach in order to influence the jury to a favorable decision rather than letting them make a decision based on the evidence alone.

And I also am willing to admit that while I may criticize this, I would probably take an entirely different approach if it was me sitting in the defendant's chair!

in part it's marketing. but really, it's about presenting someone in the most positive light possible. if the evidence is there, there appearance shouldn't matter.

if it's not there, we don't want a convication because we don't like the way someone looks.

at least i wouldn't want such a conviction.

 

[George Costanza]

The flip side question is: are lawyers being ethical when they "dress up" their defendants for the jury?

You mean get them out of jail blues, handcuffs and leg shackles?

It is well established that displaying a defendant in jail blues, handcuffs, etc., in front of the jury, is prejudicial. No court will allow that to happen. It doesn't take a genius to see why such a practice would be prejudicial. So is a defense lawyer being "unethical" when he/she sees to it that the defendant is clothed in some form of civilian clothing during trial?

I have a flip side question for you: Is a prosecutor being unethical when he/she insists that the defendant not be allowed to dress in civilian clothing and have the handcuffs removed?

Not so much the jail blues but the whole makeover approach. I don't have a problem with having the handcuffs removed. However, I see a difference between having the defendant dress up as he or she would choose to dress and having a lawyer pick out the clothing for that person.

I understand the strategy. I think there's more of a marketing approach in order to influence the jury to a favorable decision rather than letting them make a decision based on the evidence alone.

And I also am willing to admit that while I may criticize this, I would probably take an entirely different approach if it was me sitting in the defendant's chair!

It is simply a matter of fairness - either way. To use an absurd example, no judge would ever allow a defendant to appear before the jury wearing a sign that said: "I am guilty." Nor would any judge ever allow a defendant to appear with a sign saying, "I am innocent," even though that is the presumption all during the trial, prior to the jury actually beginning deliberations and reaching a verdict.

An interesting question is raised, however. I have never seen this tested, but it would seem to me that if the in-custody defendant showed up wearing a tuxedo and full, formal attire, the prosecutor might well be objecting and the judge might well be sustaining that objection.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You mean get them out of jail blues, handcuffs and leg shackles?

It is well established that displaying a defendant in jail blues, handcuffs, etc., in front of the jury, is prejudicial. No court will allow that to happen. It doesn't take a genius to see why such a practice would be prejudicial. So is a defense lawyer being "unethical" when he/she sees to it that the defendant is clothed in some form of civilian clothing during trial?

I have a flip side question for you: Is a prosecutor being unethical when he/she insists that the defendant not be allowed to dress in civilian clothing and have the handcuffs removed?

Not so much the jail blues but the whole makeover approach. I don't have a problem with having the handcuffs removed. However, I see a difference between having the defendant dress up as he or she would choose to dress and having a lawyer pick out the clothing for that person.

I understand the strategy. I think there's more of a marketing approach in order to influence the jury to a favorable decision rather than letting them make a decision based on the evidence alone.

And I also am willing to admit that while I may criticize this, I would probably take an entirely different approach if it was me sitting in the defendant's chair!

It is simply a matter of fairness - either way. To use an absurd example, no judge would ever allow a defendant to appear before the jury wearing a sign that said: "I am guilty." Nor would any judge ever allow a defendant to appear with a sign saying, "I am innocent," even though that is the presumption all during the trial, prior to the jury actually beginning deliberations and reaching a verdict.

An interesting question is raised, however. I have never seen this tested, but it would seem to me that if the in-custody defendant showed up wearing a tuxedo and full, formal attire, the prosecutor might well be objecting and the judge might well be sustaining that objection.

You can correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the prosecution allowed to present evidence that what the jury sees in the courtroom is not necessarily what the defendant normally looks like? For example, if the defendant shows up in a suit with a neat haircut the prosecution can introduce booking photos showing that he was dressed in a tshirt with a white supremacist slogan and was shaved bald, with a large swastika across the top of his head. I know these photos have to be balanced between prejudicial and probative value, but if he is charged with a hate crime against a Jew it would have some probative value.

 

[Toome]

You mean get them out of jail blues, handcuffs and leg shackles?

It is well established that displaying a defendant in jail blues, handcuffs, etc., in front of the jury, is prejudicial. No court will allow that to happen. It doesn't take a genius to see why such a practice would be prejudicial. So is a defense lawyer being "unethical" when he/she sees to it that the defendant is clothed in some form of civilian clothing during trial?

I have a flip side question for you: Is a prosecutor being unethical when he/she insists that the defendant not be allowed to dress in civilian clothing and have the handcuffs removed?

Not so much the jail blues but the whole makeover approach. I don't have a problem with having the handcuffs removed. However, I see a difference between having the defendant dress up as he or she would choose to dress and having a lawyer pick out the clothing for that person.

I understand the strategy. I think there's more of a marketing approach in order to influence the jury to a favorable decision rather than letting them make a decision based on the evidence alone.

And I also am willing to admit that while I may criticize this, I would probably take an entirely different approach if it was me sitting in the defendant's chair!

It is simply a matter of fairness - either way. To use an absurd example, no judge would ever allow a defendant to appear before the jury wearing a sign that said: "I am guilty." Nor would any judge ever allow a defendant to appear with a sign saying, "I am innocent," even though that is the presumption all during the trial, prior to the jury actually beginning deliberations and reaching a verdict.

An interesting question is raised, however. I have never seen this tested, but it would seem to me that if the in-custody defendant showed up wearing a tuxedo and full, formal attire, the prosecutor might well be objecting and the judge might well be sustaining that objection.

Well, I'm not invested either way. Just thought I'd ask the opposite question about jurors being adversely influenced by defendants with controversial tattoos by asking if they are misled by defendants who are dressed up better than they would be normally. Either way, I think the common ground here is that trails are more than just the presentation of evidence.

 

[jillian]

Not so much the jail blues but the whole makeover approach. I don't have a problem with having the handcuffs removed. However, I see a difference between having the defendant dress up as he or she would choose to dress and having a lawyer pick out the clothing for that person.

I understand the strategy. I think there's more of a marketing approach in order to influence the jury to a favorable decision rather than letting them make a decision based on the evidence alone.

And I also am willing to admit that while I may criticize this, I would probably take an entirely different approach if it was me sitting in the defendant's chair!

It is simply a matter of fairness - either way. To use an absurd example, no judge would ever allow a defendant to appear before the jury wearing a sign that said: "I am guilty." Nor would any judge ever allow a defendant to appear with a sign saying, "I am innocent," even though that is the presumption all during the trial, prior to the jury actually beginning deliberations and reaching a verdict.

An interesting question is raised, however. I have never seen this tested, but it would seem to me that if the in-custody defendant showed up wearing a tuxedo and full, formal attire, the prosecutor might well be objecting and the judge might well be sustaining that objection.

Well, I'm not invested either way. Just thought I'd ask the opposite question about jurors being adversely influenced by defendants with controversial tattoos by asking if they are misled by defendants who are dressed up better than they would be normally. Either way, I think the common ground here is that trails are more than just the presentation of evidence.

I always wonder about people who ask the kind of question you did. The law protects the defendant from undue prejudce AGAINST him or her. It does not protect the defendant from people thinking he's better/nicer/cleaner/ etc...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is simply a matter of fairness - either way. To use an absurd example, no judge would ever allow a defendant to appear before the jury wearing a sign that said: "I am guilty." Nor would any judge ever allow a defendant to appear with a sign saying, "I am innocent," even though that is the presumption all during the trial, prior to the jury actually beginning deliberations and reaching a verdict.

An interesting question is raised, however. I have never seen this tested, but it would seem to me that if the in-custody defendant showed up wearing a tuxedo and full, formal attire, the prosecutor might well be objecting and the judge might well be sustaining that objection.

Well, I'm not invested either way. Just thought I'd ask the opposite question about jurors being adversely influenced by defendants with controversial tattoos by asking if they are misled by defendants who are dressed up better than they would be normally. Either way, I think the common ground here is that trails are more than just the presentation of evidence.

I always wonder about people who ask the kind of question you did. The law protects the defendant from undue prejudce AGAINST him or her. It does not protect the defendant from people thinking he's better/nicer/cleaner/ etc...

So according to you, the presence of VOLUNTARY Tattoos that the defendant wanted and requested be placed on his body are not allowed? What next? wigs for skin heads?

 

[George Costanza]

Well, I'm not invested either way. Just thought I'd ask the opposite question about jurors being adversely influenced by defendants with controversial tattoos by asking if they are misled by defendants who are dressed up better than they would be normally. Either way, I think the common ground here is that trails are more than just the presentation of evidence.

I always wonder about people who ask the kind of question you did. The law protects the defendant from undue prejudce AGAINST him or her. It does not protect the defendant from people thinking he's better/nicer/cleaner/ etc...

So according to you, the presence of VOLUNTARY Tattoos that the defendant wanted and requested be placed on his body are not allowed? What next? wigs for skin heads?

If tattoos are relevant to the trial, then the judge could prevent the defense from covering them. "I remember the robber had a big "Z" tattooed on his forehead." The defendant has a big Z tattooed on his forehead. That would probably be viewable by the jury on the issue of identification.

If tattoos are NOT relevant to the trial, and would be prejudicial, then they should be covered. In the case mentioned in the OP, it sounds as though the tattoos would NOT be relevant. In such a situation, irrelevant tattoos showing the defendant is a skinhead, would clearly be prejudicial. The jury might convict the defendant solely because they don't like skinheads, rather than because of the actual evidence.

So, to answer your question, yes - in this case, the presence of (irrelevant and prejudicial) VOLUNTARY tattoos are properly not allowed.

Following your logic, if a defendant VOLUNTARILY belonged to the Hell's Angels, then that fact should be presented to the jury in a case where the defendant is on trial for writing a bad check.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I always wonder about people who ask the kind of question you did. The law protects the defendant from undue prejudce AGAINST him or her. It does not protect the defendant from people thinking he's better/nicer/cleaner/ etc...

So according to you, the presence of VOLUNTARY Tattoos that the defendant wanted and requested be placed on his body are not allowed? What next? wigs for skin heads?

If tattoos are relevant to the trial, then the judge could prevent the defense from covering them. "I remember the robber had a big "Z" tattooed on his forehead." The defendant has a big Z tattooed on his forehead. That would probably be viewable by the jury on the issue of identification.

If tattoos are NOT relevant to the trial, and would be prejudicial, then they should be covered. In the case mentioned in the OP, it sounds as though the tattoos would NOT be relevant. In such a situation, irrelevant tattoos showing the defendant is a skinhead, would clearly be prejudicial. The jury might convict the defendant solely because they don't like skinheads, rather than because of the actual evidence.

So, to answer your question, yes - in this case, the presence of (irrelevant and prejudicial) VOLUNTARY tattoos are properly not allowed.

Following your logic, if a defendant VOLUNTARILY belonged to the Hell's Angels, then that fact should be presented to the jury in a case where the defendant is on trial for writing a bad check.

You are a dumb shit. But then we already knew that didn't we? By the way the tattoos are relevant when providing the state of mind of the defendant.

 

[Samson]

You mean get them out of jail blues, handcuffs and leg shackles?

It is well established that displaying a defendant in jail blues, handcuffs, etc., in front of the jury, is prejudicial. No court will allow that to happen. It doesn't take a genius to see why such a practice would be prejudicial. So is a defense lawyer being "unethical" when he/she sees to it that the defendant is clothed in some form of civilian clothing during trial?

I have a flip side question for you: Is a prosecutor being unethical when he/she insists that the defendant not be allowed to dress in civilian clothing and have the handcuffs removed?

Not so much the jail blues but the whole makeover approach. I don't have a problem with having the handcuffs removed. However, I see a difference between having the defendant dress up as he or she would choose to dress and having a lawyer pick out the clothing for that person.

I understand the strategy. I think there's more of a marketing approach in order to influence the jury to a favorable decision rather than letting them make a decision based on the evidence alone.

And I also am willing to admit that while I may criticize this, I would probably take an entirely different approach if it was me sitting in the defendant's chair!

It is simply a matter of fairness - either way. To use an absurd example, no judge would ever allow a defendant to appear before the jury wearing a sign that said: "I am guilty." Nor would any judge ever allow a defendant to appear with a sign saying, "I am innocent," even though that is the presumption all during the trial, prior to the jury actually beginning deliberations and reaching a verdict.

An interesting question is raised, however. I have never seen this tested, but it would seem to me that if the in-custody defendant showed up wearing a tuxedo and full, formal attire, the prosecutor might well be objecting and the judge might well be sustaining that objection.

Or, what if he showed up wearing Clown makeup? A Chicken Suit? Nekkid?

Shouldn't a "Jury of His Peers" all have tattoos like him if they reflect his "inner-self?"

Frankly, a defense attourney could play the system forever with this crap: So, let the guy wear whatever he wants, as long as the judge approves it. I'd think a reasonable judge would try to prevent any grounds for appealing the case on the basis that the guys tats prejudiced the jury.

 

[chanel]

Perhaps tattoo artists should be required to display warnings at the parlor "In the event of a murder charge, your nazi symbols could be prejudicial in a court of law"

Actions Consequences Personal Responsibility

He paid for them. TFB.