Opinion ID: 853750
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jail Clothes

Text: Hackett contends that his conviction must be reversed because an alternate juror observed him in his jail clothes. On the morning of the second day of trial a deputy sheriff walked Hackett and two other inmates past the jury room en route to a holding cell. The three men were clad in orange jumpsuits. The door to the jury room was open, and Hackett later told the trial court that he had seen one [juror], eye to eye. After a brief colloquy it was determined that Hackett had seen Ms. Boaz, the alternate. At Hackett's request the trial court questioned Boaz in open court with Hackett, defense counsel and the State present. Boaz told the trial court that she had seen an officer walk past with three men in orange jumpsuits and that she believed one of them to be Hackett. The trial court told her that it was not going to say whether or not [Hackett] was one of those persons, but asked, if it were Hackett, would that affect her ability to give him a fair and impartial trial. She responded [n]o. Boaz also told the trial court that she believed another juror had seen Hackett in an orange jumpsuit, but the two had not spoken about the incident. The alternate described the other juror as having silvery hair. Defense counsel then asked that Mr. Poland, apparently the only juror fitting that description, be questioned. The trial court admonished Boaz not to mention anything that happened in the courtroom with regard to this inquiry, and she was then returned to the jury room. Poland was then brought out and asked if he had seen the defendant since court ended the previous evening. He responded that he had not, and defense counsel was offered but declined the opportunity to question him further. The trial court admonished him not to mention the questioning to the other jurors. Defense counsel did not ask that any other jurors be questioned or seek any additional admonishment. Hackett asserts that [t]he presumption of innocence became a nullity when two jurors observed [him] in jail clothes during trial. He points to Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that compelling a defendant to go to trial in jail garb violates the due process and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the defendant in Estelle requested his civilian clothes when he learned he was going to trial, the request was denied and he was tried in clothes that were distinctly marked as prison issue. Id. at 502. The Court reasoned that this undermined the presumption of innocence. The defendant's clothing is so likely to be a continuing influence throughout the trial that, not unlike placing a jury in the custody of deputy sheriffs who were also witnesses for the prosecution, an unacceptable risk is presented of impermissible factors coming into play. Id. at 505, 96 S.Ct. 1691 (citing Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 473, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965)). As this Court observed in Gregory v. State, 274 Ind. 450, 454, 412 N.E.2d 744, 747 (1980), a crucial component in Estelle was that the jury would be continuously influenced throughout the trial by the defendant's obvious appearance in jail attire. In Estelle the entire jury viewed the defendant in jail clothes throughout the entire trial. Here, an alternate juror who did not participate in deliberations viewed the defendant in jail attire for a matter of seconds. Greater exposure has been held no basis for reversal. See Misenheimer v. State, 268 Ind. 274, 282, 374 N.E.2d 523, 529 (1978) (entire jury waiting in hallway inadvertently saw the defendant taken through a barred door from a lock-up area); see also Bailey v. State, 519 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind.1988) (three jurors and an alternate viewed the defendant in the custody of the sheriff). Hackett also suggests that the trial court erred by failing to determine the extent to which the exposure of Hackett in jail clothes was viewed or learned of by the jurors. After Ms. Boaz stated that she thought another juror with silvery hair saw Hackett in an orange jumpsuit, defense counsel concluded that the juror was Poland and asked that he be brought out for questioning. This was done and resulted in his denying having seen Hackett after court concluded the previous evening. Defense counsel did not suggest that any other jurors be questioned. Under these circumstances we agree with the State that Hackett has waived any argument that the trial court failed to take the further action of questioning other jurors or offering additional admonishments.