Opinion ID: 2630876
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Wearing a jail identification bracelet in front of the jury

Text: ¶ 46 Levy claims that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to analyze his claim that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was required to wear a red identification bracelet during the trial. Levy is correct that the Court of Appeals stated that it was unable to find any indication in the record that he was wearing the identification bracelet. However, the court noted that Levy failed to object at trial and said it could not determine how Levy was prejudiced. Levy, 2004 WL 1326813, at , 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1206, at . ¶ 47 The record shows that the trial court discussed the identification bracelet with both attorneys during the second sentencing hearing. SVRP at 8-11. A defendant may not be required to appear in court in restraints because the jury may infer that the defendant is dangerous or untrustworthy. However, the bracelet described in the record was not a restraint; it was more comparable to jail attire. Washington courts have acknowledged that wearing jail attire is often used as a defense tactic to gain sympathy, so a defendant must object to being compelled to wear jail attire in court or he waives the right to argue the issue later. State v. Sanchez, 122 Wash.App. 579, 587-88, 94 P.3d 384 (2004). Since Levy did not object to wearing the identification bracelet during trial, he waived the right to raise the issue now. ¶ 48 We find each of Levy's specific pro se claims to be without merit.