Opinion ID: 559785
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Mug-shot

Text: 6 We have recognized the prejudical effect of the introduction of a mug-shot, given its well-known format and implication of past criminal activity and bad acts. Bleimehl, 525 F.2d at 416-17; Rodriguez v. Young, No. 89-3605, slip op. at 9 (7th Cir. February 22, 1991). At the same time, that prejudicial effect does not always give rise to a federal constitutional violation. When the jury is fully informed of the circumstances surrounding the production of the mug-shot such that the inference of a criminal history or bad character is mitigated, its introduction does not rise to the level of a constitutional denial of due process. Bleimehl, 525 F.2d at 421; Rodriguez, No. 89-3605 at 10. 7 The introduction of Mr. Beadin's mug-shot did not render his trial fundamentally unfair. As the Indiana Supreme Court held, the date March 28, 1986 was clearly visible on the mug-shot. Mr. Beadin was on trial for conduct that was alleged to have occurred on March 27, 1986. Further, a police officer testified that the mug-shot depicted the clothing Mr. Beadin wore at the time of his arrest. See Beadin v. State, 533 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.1989). Thus, with this information, the mug-shot's prejudicial implication of past criminal activities was negated. As such, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the jury was clearly informed about the mug-shot in a manner that negated any implication of a past criminal record. Given that Mr. Beadin's case is a habeas petition, we will not overturn that decision.