Opinion ID: 4569226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Standard as Applied in Similar Cases

Text: A standard like the one articulated above has been applied in cases where a jury viewed a criminal defendant in handcuffs or jail garb in-person or in a photograph. While neither this Court nor the United States Supreme Court has had the opportunity to analyze a videotaped presentation like the one in the present case,68 other state appellate courts have considered cases that presented similar facts. In State v. Taylor, for example, the Tennessee Supreme Court considered whether the trial court erred in allowing the jury to view a videotape in which the defendant appeared in custody and dressed in jail attire.69 The challenged video in Taylor was recorded while the State was working with a jail informant 66 See, e.g., Estelle, 425 U.S. at 510–13 (concluding that Williams was not entitled to reversal of his conviction because it was undisputed that Williams did not object before the trial court to being tried in jail clothing, the Court could not conclude that Williams was compelled to stand trial in jail clothing in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment). 67See, e.g., Deck, 544 U.S. at 635 (concluding that where a court, without adequate justification, orders the defendant to wear visible shackles before the jury, prejudice is presumed, and reversal is required unless the State proves “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the erroneous shackling of the defendant did not impact the ultimate verdict). 68This Court in Bryant was presented with similar facts, and it indicated that it would be reluctant to find any error in admitting the video based on this Court’s decision in Estep. 2015–SC–000467–MR, at . The case at bar is different because Deal did preserve his objection to admitting the challenged video depicting him in jail garb and shackles. 69 240 S.W.3d 789 (Tn. 2007). 20 who claimed that the defendant had previously confessed to the crimes.70 The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the video because it did not result in a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.71 In its discussion of the defendant’s claim that the video violated his constitutional rights, the Tennessee Supreme Court explained that the facts relied on by the Supreme Court in Estelle are distinguishable from Taylor’s case because: the defendant was not tried while dressed in jail attire; the jury only saw a brief videotape of defendant wearing jail attire; the video was not the cause of the potential prejudice arising from discovering that the defendant was jailed because the jury already knew before viewing the videotape that the defendant was in jail based on the informant’s testimony; and because the trial took place over 3 days, and the video was only seven-minutes long.72 While it “caution[ed] trial courts that unnecessary displays of a criminal defendant bearing the badges of custody should be avoided,” the court ultimately held 70 Id. at 793. 71 Id. at 794–97. The defendant in Taylor also argued that the video violated his constitutional rights because the State had an audio version of his conversation with the informant, but the court declined to consider this factor in its analysis because it agreed with the State’s argument that the defendant had waived this argument by failing to include the audiotape in the appellate record. Id. at 795 (citing State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 560–61 (Tenn. 1993)). 72 Id. at 795–96. The Tennessee Supreme Court explained that the Supreme Court in Estelle “recognized that ‘the constant reminder of the accused's condition implicit in such distinctive, identifiable attire may affect a juror's judgment. The defendant's clothing is so likely to be a continuing influence throughout the trial that . . . an unacceptable risk is presented of impermissible factors coming into play.’” Id. (quoting Estelle, 425 U.S. at 504–05, 512). 21 that “[u]nder these circumstances, . . . the brief videotape . . . did not serve as a ‘constant reminder’ to the jury that the Defendant had been previously jailed and it did not corrupt the presumption of innocence on which the jury was properly instructed.”73 The Tennessee Supreme Court in Taylor also explained that its holding was supported by several similar cases that were decided by courts in other states.74 In sum, like the Supreme Court in Holbrook, the Tennessee Supreme Court, as well as the state court decisions that it cited, concluded in the first instance that admitting video evidence depicting a defendant in jail custody is not “inherently prejudicial” under all circumstances. And we do not disagree with that point. Common sense suggests that the impact of allowing a brief videotaped presentation to the jury depicting the defendant in jail attire or shackles is not as damaging as requiring a defendant to appear that way in person before the jury. But we remain convinced that videos of the defendant “bearing badges of 73 Id. at 796–97. 74 Id. at 797 (discussing State v. Schaller, 199 Wis.2d 23, 544 N.W.2d 247 (App.1995)), State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 832 P.2d 593, 645 (1992), overruled on other grounds by State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 25 P.3d 717, 729 (2001), and Anderson v. State, 574 So.2d 87 (Fla. 1991)). For example, the Tennessee Supreme Court explained that the Supreme Court of Florida “rejected [a] defendant's contention that he had been denied a fair trial because the jury was shown a one and one-half minute long videotaped news report that briefly depicted the defendant in jail clothes.” Id. (citing Anderson, 574 So.2d at 93–94 (Fla. 1991)). The Supreme Court of Florida concluded that “‘[u]nder the circumstances, there was no “constant reminder of the accused's condition” to support the conclusion that [the defendant] was denied a fair trial.’” Id. (quoting Anderson, 574 So.2d at 93-94 (quoting Estelle, 425 U.S. at 504, 96 S.Ct. 1691))). 22 custody” pose a threat to the defendant’s right to a fair trial because it tends to suggest to the jury that some official determination has already been made that the defendant needs to be restrained and separated from society. This is especially true when, as in Deal’s case, the jury was able to see and hear testimony to the effect that the jail interview was recorded months after the defendant was arrested on the underlying charges.