NCJ Number
139574
Journal
Criminal Justice Journal Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Dated: (Summer 1992) Pages: 69-79
Date Published
1992
Length
11 pages
Annotation
This article reviews court decisions relevant to the issue of whether or not the use of plastic gloves by court personnel in the handling of AIDS-infected defendants poses a potential threat to the defendant's right to a fair trial and due process of law.
Abstract
In Wiggins v. State (1989) the Maryland Court of Appeals overturned a trial court's conviction of an AIDS victim charged with murder and robbery. That court held that the wearing of gloves by court personnel in the presence of the jury prejudicially undermined the fairness of the fact- finding process. The court reasoned that since "a climate of fear still surrounds the disease," the jury would be unfairly prejudiced against the defendant. Because at this time there is no definitive case law on the AIDS-specific issue, attorneys who defend such clients must draw their legal arguments from cases the have involved similar prejudicial treatment of defendants; for example, there are numerous cases that have held a criminal defendant may not be compelled to go into a courtroom for trial wearing prison-issued clothing. Other courts have held that, absent a showing of necessity, it is impermissible to have a defendant appear at a jury trial in physical restraints. Courts have consistently held that, absent a compelling State interest, the State cannot engage in practices that disadvantage the defendant apart from the presentation of evidence in accordance with legally acceptable fact-finding procedures. Given the negative image of AIDS-infected persons current in society and the fact that AIDS cannot be transmitted through casual contact, the State should not engage in courtroom behaviors that would indicate to a jury that a defendant is infected with AIDS. 55 footnotes