Opinion ID: 168427
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appearance in Prison Clothing

Text: 12 On the first day of trial, Portillo-Quezada's co-defendants, Espino and Waterbury, appeared in the court room in prison clothing apparently because friends or family had been unable to arrive in time with a clothing change. Portillo-Quezada wore street clothes. Before voir dire questioning began, the district court asked the defendants if they were prepared to proceed with voir dire given Espino's and Waterbury's appearance. Each of the three defendants agreed to proceed. 1 Sometime during a break in questioning later in the day, Espino changed into civilian clothes. Waterbury, however, remained in prison clothing throughout the voir dire. Before ending voir dire, the court also asked members of the jury pool whether the defendants' appearance in prison garb would prejudice them. The potential jurors assured the court they would be impartial at trial. Each of the defendants passed the jury for cause. 13 Since Portillo-Quezada did not object at voir dire, we review for plain error. United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727, 732 (10th Cir.2005). Plain error exists only when there is (1) error, (2) that was plain, (3) affecting substantial rights, and (4) going to the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. 14 The right to a fair trial is a fundamental liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976). The Constitution therefore prohibits any courtroom procedure that undermines the presumption of innocence and the related fairness of the factfinding process. Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 630, 125 S.Ct. 2007, 161 L.Ed.2d 953 (2005). It is well-settled that defendants who are compelled to appear before the jury in handcuffs, shackles or prison attire suffer prejudice which unconstitutionally undermines the presumption of innocence. In Estelle, for example, the Supreme Court found due process was compromised by the constant reminder of the accused's condition implicit in such distinctive, identifiable attire. 425 U.S. at 504-05, 96 S.Ct. 1691. Similarly, in Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 569, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986), the Court found that prison clothes are unmistakable indications of the need to separate a defendant from the community at large and violate the right to a fair trial. Trial courts must avoid the sort of inherently prejudicial practice[s] that undermine the presumption of innocence by giving the jury the impression that the defendant is guilty. Id. at 560, 106 S.Ct. 1340. 15 Portillo-Quezada did not wear prison clothing at voir dire or anytime during trial. He contends, however, he was prejudiced by his association with the co-defendants who wore prison garb. We disagree. 16 First, even if there was error, it was invited by the defendants. The district court explicitly asked all three defendants if they wanted to proceed with voir dire despite Espino's and Waterbury's appearance. Each defendant acquiesced. A party cannot induce action by a court and later seek[] reversal on the ground that the requested action was error. United States v. Edward J., 224 F.3d 1216, 1222 (10th Cir.2000). `Having induced the court to rely ... a party ... may not at a later stage ... use the error to set aside the immediate consequences of the error.' United States v. Deberry, 430 F.3d 1294, 1302 (10th Cir.2005) ( quoting Fryman v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp., 936 F.2d 244, 249 (6th Cir.1991)). Portillo-Quezada cannot now complain he was prejudiced by an error he invited from the court. 17 Second, the Supreme Court has been quite clear that a defendant's failure to object to trial proceedings conducted in prison garb negate[s] the presence of compulsion necessary to establish a constitutional violation. Estelle, 425 U.S. at 512-13, 96 S.Ct. 1691. In other words, a defendant can be tried in prison clothing if he so chooses. Here, Portillo-Quezada and his co-defendants chose to proceed with voir dire despite the court's implied offer to postpone the proceedings on account of Espino's and Waterbury's appearance. Their choice was entirely voluntary. 18 Finally, even if the procedure raised concerns of prejudice, the district court dispelled them. The court polled the jury and created a record showing the jury was uninfluenced by seeing Espino and Waterbury in prison clothing. Portillo-Quezada asked no questions of the jury pool about bias arising from the circumstances or in any way elicited evidence the jury was in fact prejudiced against him. Any potential prejudice is further attenuated by the fact that Portillo-Quezada was in civilian clothes, not prison garb, throughout voir dire and trial. 19 Accordingly, we find no error in the district court's decision to go forward with voir dire upon Portillo-Quezada's consent.