NCJ Number
43386
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 1 Issue: 1 Dated: (1977) Pages: 87-100
Date Published
1977
Length
14 pages
Annotation
THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES WHAT JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF PREJUDICIAL EFFECTS OF APPEARANCE ALREADY EXISTS OR MAY DEVELOP AND HOW THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COULD BE HANDLED PROCEDURALLY.
Abstract
JURY STEREOTYPING OF A DEFENDANT ON THE BASIS OF HIS OR HER PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ACCUSED'S RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL. THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THE POTENTIALLY PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OF PRISON ATTIRE, AND OTHER PREJUDICIAL INFLUENCES EXIST IN THE TRIAL, INCLUDING GROOMING HABITS AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ACCUSED. THE AUTHOR FEELS THAT PERMITTING STEREOTYPING TO GO UNCHECKED VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIR PROCEDURES. SOME OF THE TRADITIONAL METHODS TO CIRCUMVENT PREJUDICE, SUCH AS VOIR DIRE EXAMINATIONS, CHANGE OF VENUE, OR JURY INSTRUCTIONS AGAINST BIAS RESULTING FROM THE DEFENDANT'S DRESS COULD BE APPLIED IF THE COURT WERE CONVINCED THAT STEREOTYPING WAS A SIGNIFICANT FORCE IN THE TRIAL OF THE CASE. OTHER ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED TO CHECK PREJUDICIAL EFFECTS OF STEREOTYPING INCLUDE MAKING THE DEFENDANT'S APPEARANCE AS INOFFENSIVE AS POSSIBLE, MITIGATING PHYSICAL UNATTRACTIVENESS THROUGH EFFECTIVE COURTROOM TESTIMONY AND REFERENCES, OR WAIVING THE DEFENDANT'S PRESENCE AT THE TRIAL. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE AND INTENSITY OF STEREOTYPING WOULD NEED TO BE MORE SUBSTANTIAL FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO ADOPT MORE RADICAL SOLUTIONS.