Document: 425 U.S. 501 96 S.Ct. 1691 48 L.Ed.2d 126 W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Petitioner,v.Harry Lee WILLIAMS. No. 74-676. Argued Oct. 7, 1975. Decided May 3, 1976. Rehearing Denied June 21, See 426 954, 3182. Syllabus Respondent, who was charged with a criminal offense and held in custody awaiting trial, asked jail officer on the morning trial for his civilian clothes to wear at trial; no action taken. During Voir dire counsel expressly referred respondent's attire. At time before or during ensuing jury issue raised judge concerning whose conviction upheld appeal, sought federal habeas corpus. The District Court denied relief but Appeals reversed. Though there evidence that county where occurred majority nonbailed defendants were tried clothes, such practice followed if timely objection made judge; particular permit any accused so desired be garb. Held: Although State cannot, consistent Fourteenth Amendment, compel an stand while dressed identifiable prison failure make court as being negates presence compulsion necessary establish constitutional violation. Nothing record here warrants conclusion respondent compelled garb sufficient reason excuse raise trial. Pp. 503-511. 5 Cir., 500 F.2d 206, reversed remanded. Dunklin Sullivan, Austin, Tex., petitioner. Ben Aderholt, Corpus Christi, respondent. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari this case determine whether is clothing by due process equal protection laws. 2 In November 1970, Williams convicted state Harris County, assault intent commit murder malice. crime altercation between former landlord latter's property. showed returned apartment complex he had formerly resided visit female tenant. While there, became involved quarrel. Heated words exchanged, fight ensued. Respondent struck knife neck, chest, abdomen, severely wounding him. 3 Unable post bond, When learned go clothes. This request denied. As result, appeared distinctly marked issue. Neither nor attire time. 4 A verdict guilty charge Criminal affirmed conviction. v. State, 477 S.W.2d 24 (1972). then release United States petition writ holding requiring defendant inherently unfair, ground error harmless. Beto, 364 F.Supp. 335 (S.D.Tex.1973). basis its own prior Hernandez 443 634 (CA5), cert. denied, 404 897, 92 201, 30 174 (1971). 206. Fifth Circuit disagreed solely harmless error. 6 (1) 7 right fair fundamental liberty secured Amendment. Drope Missouri, 420 162, 172, 95 896, 904, 43 103, 113 (1975). presumption innocence, although not articulated Constitution, basic component under our system justice. Long ago stated: 8 "The principle innocence favor undoubted law, axiomatic elementary, enforcement lies foundation administration law." Coffin States, 156 432, 453, 15 394, 403, 39 L.Ed. 481, 491 (1895). 9 To implement presumption, courts must alert factors may undermine fairness fact-finding process. justice, carefully guard against dilution guilt established probative beyond reasonable doubt. re Winship, 397 358, 364, 90 1068, 1072, 25 368, 375 (1970). 10 actual impact judgment jurors cannot always fully determined. But has left doubt probability deleterious effects rights calls close judicial scrutiny. Estes Texas, 381 532, 85 1628, 14 543 (1965); Murchison, 349 133, 75 623, 99 942 (1955). Courts do best they can evaluate likely procedure, based reason, principle, common human experience. 11 potential presenting need not, however, measured abstract. have, few exceptions,1 determined should because possible impairment adversary system. Gaito Brierley, 485 86 (CA3 1973); Supra; Brooks 619 (CA5 1967); Commonwealth Keeler, 216 Pa.Super. 193, 264 A.2d 407 (1970); Miller 249 Ark. 457 848 People Shaw, Mich. 467, 164 N.W.2d (1969); Zapata, 220 Cal.App.2d 903, 34 Cal.Rptr. 171 (1963), 377 406, 84 1633, 12 495 (1964); Eaddy People, 115 Colo. 488, P.2d 717 (1946). American Bar Association's Standards Justice also disapprove practice. ABA Project Justice, Trial Jury, § 4.1(b), p. 91 (App.Draft 1968). recognition constant reminder accused's condition implicit distinctive, affect juror's judgment. defendant's continuing influence throughout that, unlike placing deputy sheriffs witnesses prosecution, unacceptable risk presented impermissible coming into play. Turner Louisia, 379 466, 473, 546, 550, 13 424, 429 (1965). That avoided manifest Illinois Allen, 337, 1057, 353 (1970), we recognized "the sight shackles gags might have significant effect jury's feelings about . ," Id., 344, 1061, 359, yet when control contumacious defendant. For authorized removal disruptive from courtroom or, alternatively, binding gagging until agrees conduct himself properly courtroom. Unlike physical restraints, permitted supra, compelling furthers essential policy. it more convenient administrators, factor quite substantial impose restraints upon defendants,2 provides justification Indeed, asserts interest whatever maintaining procedure. Similarly troubling fact operates usually only those bail Persons secure are subjected condition. one category defendants, over objection, would repugnant concept justice embodied Griffin Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 891 (1956). (2) 16 Circuit, well decisions, purported adopt Per se Rule invalidating all convictions held, instance, harmless-error doctrine applicable line cases. F.2d, 210-212. Thomas 474 981, 414 871, 94 95, 38 89 (1973); 637. Other accord. Bentley Crist, 469 854, 856 (CA9 1972); Watt Page, 452 1174, 1176-1177 (CA10), 405 1070, 1520, 31 803 case, quoted language Douglas, speaking Harrington California, 395 250, 1726, 23 284 (1969): 17 "We Chapman California 'before harmless, able declare belief doubt.' said 'trial errors which violate Constitution automatically call reversal.' " 251-252, 1727, L.Ed.2d, 286 (citations omitted). 18 386 18, 87 824, 705 (1967), Court, through Black, held: 19 urged petitioners hold errors, regardless facts circumstances, deemed harmful. Such holding, correctly point out, require automatic reversal their further discussion unnecessary. decline rule. All 50 statutes rules, long Congress rule judgments shall 'errors defects parties.' conclude some setting unimportant insignificant may, Federal conviction." 21-22, S.Ct., 827, 709 (citation footnote 20 other situations, when, example, committed confinement, attempted escape, refused find ex rel. Stahl Henderson, 472 556 411 971, 93 2166, 36 694 (1973), declined overturn defendant, albeit having murdered another inmate confined prison. "No prejudice result seeing already known." 557. present concluded: 21 "A different appropriate allegedly prison, learn incarceration event." 209 n. 5. 22 Contra: Roman, 35 N.Y.2d 978, 365 N.Y.S.2d 527, 324 N.E.2d 885 Consequently, embrace mechanical vitiating conviction, Instead, evil proscribed will, focus simple; instances frequently arise prefers peers garments. cases show, uncommon defense tactic produce hope eliciting sympathy jury. Andern Watt, 475 881, 882 (CA10 1176. Cf. Garcia 655, 656 1971). apparently accepted courts, Barber 868, 870 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), including tried. therefore required object garments, just invoke abandon rights.3 remain silent willingly thereafter claim error." meaning Appeals' decision been described follows: (in ) attorney burden known could accountable ." 557.4 26 Similarly, Ninth indicated "was trial." 856. Dennis Dees, 278 354, 359 (ED La.1968), disapproved grounds, 557; N.Y.2d, 978-979, N.Y.S.2d, 527-528, N.E.2d, 885-886; (1969). 27 (3) 28 clear either atny omission plainly did lack appreciation issue, question attendant dire. thus informed conscious situation.5 29 Despite "Waiver inferred merely customary jurisdiction." 208. concluded County indeed From this, customary. Ibid. 32 However, analysis ignores adduced evidentiary hearing. Notwithstanding general finding garments judge. On contrary, presiding change clothes: 33 "There (judge) allowing tri clothing, requested, evidently certain judges well." 335, 343 (1973).6 judge's policy confirmed hearing prosecutor practiced court. Significantly, intimate feared adverse consequences attending procedure.7 There nothing suggest prejudicial given decisions jurisdiction. Four years "It unfair try garbed uniform 624. "(E)very effort avoid trying garb." Ring 450 85, 88 (1970).8 Prior interposed. Wilkinson 423 311, 313 (Tex.Crim.App.1968); S.W.2d, 88. record, therefore, trial.9 Nor faulted asking deliberately going requirement suggests same situation Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 1461 (1938), concerned stood without benefit counsel. Under system, once assistance vast array strategic tactical, rests attorney. Any approach rewrite duties legal 37 Accordingly, consistently negate violation.10 reversed, cause remanded proceedings opinion. Reversed 40 STEVENS took part consideration case. 41 POWELL, whom STEWART joins, concurring. 42 I concur Court's dissenting take divergent views write separately identify specifically considerations deem controlling. Harry Williams, clad differences relevance "compulsion" essentially agree disagreement significance attributed Williams' 44 relevant two situations standing despite claimed infringement right. first arises shown substantive consensually relinquished. "inexcusable procedural default" failing protected. Hart, Foreword: Time Chart Justices, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 84, 118 (1959); see Association Post-Conviction Remedies 35-37 45 represented retained, experienced It conceded aware "prison garb" issue1 elected simply thought futile. shows presided "had requested .." (1973). apparent interposed garb, arisen. 46 presents occurs namely, incident implicates often allowed cure. trial-type here, counsel's itself susceptible interpretation tactical choice. Ante, 507-508. 47 my view choice default nature ordinarily operate,2 matter law preclude later raising right.3 generally disfavor waivers rights. 464, 1023, 1461, 1466 (1939); Barker Wingo, 514, 525-526, 2182, 2189, 101, 113-114 policy, carried length forgo curable defect, even though factual futile.4 BRENNAN, MARSHALL concurs, dissenting. 49 dissent. statement "(t)he factors" affecting jurors' judgment, possibility unjustified guilt, 505, concedes garb1 constituted denial aside nevertheless Compelled does rest knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently consented attire, waived (1938). Rather, time, confines protections Defining materially affects accuracy terms Compulsion, which, context Amendment's privilege self-incrimination, inapposite proceedings. end definitional impute waiver apprise results illogical delineation introduces jurisprudence novel dangerously test surrender agree.2 * law: violation denies 504-505, 512, 512-513, will developed, difference objected 51 One safeguards attends "that bedrock 'axiomatic elementary' 'enforcement law.' 363, quoting 402, also, E. g., Deutch 367 456, 471, 81 1587, 1595, 963, 973 (1961); Sinclair 279 263, 296-297, 268, 272-273, 692, 699 (1929). concrete substance imposes prosecution proving stake interests immense importance, both lose certainty stigmatized society values good name freedom every individual condemn man commission guilt." U.S., 363-364, 375. "prime instrument reducing resting error," 375, reasonable-doubt standard. dangers obvious. 52 Identifiable robs respect dignity accorded participants constitutionally element surely tends brand him eyes unmistakable mark guilt. Jurors speculate pretrial incarceration, inability bail, explained poses danger community record; created corruption factfinding mere suspicion. subtle deadly impact, person presumed innocent proved doubt, Due Process Clause forbids toleration risk. accept peer, like themselves guilty, obviously recommitted them place clearly show belongs. difficult conceive fraught standard 53 entails additional objectiveness considering testify weigh how react paraded less credit testimony brands criminal. And problem most confront indigent appears too poor bail. circumstance, concession prosecutorial served ironical ring.3 54 light denying undercutting standard, escapes me delineate If, holds, unsuccessfully wearing (and "compelled" them) unconstitutionally disadvantages nonobjecting similarly disadvantageous. perspective, objecting identical; create improper negative inferences minds jurors, accused. logic experience knowledge lodged court, differently situations. baffles denigrates determination turn objected; since irrelevant purpose underlying prohibition confining safeguard irrational face.4 55 sure, consent departing subverted promulgating dangerous safeguard, contingent come existence affirmatively asserted. Is today signaling demise Zerbst voluntary protections?5 certainly, know object, surrenders securing process, totally eviscerated traditional loss inaction.6 II 56 Justices POWELL evisceration rights, rationale circumstance joining puzzling. admittedly obscure, interpreted importing areas diluting concurring prefer reverse properly, "an inexcusable "tactical choice" precludes assertion 513, 514. Because obfuscates various issues, import true brought better today's Francis 536, 1708, 149, default, separate concepts relating methods yield 57 "waiver" least means engaged characterized intentional relinquishment abandonment privilege." L.Ed., 1466; 6, Supra. If knowingly otherwise entitled, merits claim, deprived anything. "procedural default," involves manner forfeit asserting according strictures State's rules. never adjudication merits. addressed Fay Noia, 372 391, 83 822, 837 discretion deny applicant by-passed orderly procedure doing forfeited remedies." 438, 849, 869. emphatic "very grant permission introduce fictions corpus," 439, 869, unambiguously "deliberate by-pass" defaults analogue "knowing intelligent" absence assertion: classic definition enunciated 'an privilege' furnishes controlling applicant, after consultation competent otherwise, understandingly forewent seeking vindicate claims strategic, reasons fairly deliberate by-passing procedures, open entertain course satisfied itself, means, bearing applicant's default. events wish understood put forth depends considered participated petitioner bar relief. court's independent habeas, question." 59 543-545, 1712-1713, 155-157 (Brennan, J., dissenting). bypassed mechanisms adjudicating address claim; corollary, merits, seek prohibit precluded See, Lefkowitz Newsome, 283, 292 9, 886, 890, 196, 203 60 With background mind, glaring inadequacies become manifest. First,he render grounds expounded 24, 26-27 below, indefensible seize perpetuate unconstitutional confinement. 10, Infra. 61 Second, basic, opinion, reference citing precedent, directly repudiates implicitly undermines precedential value converts "inexcusable" test, practice, reasoning remedied. could, hindsight matter, probably invoked inadvertently inexplicably fails contemporaneously deprivation client's knowing-and-intelligent-bypass rendered hollow shell. appear shift proof, shown, rather than "deliberate." Moreover, assert alter aspect Trial-type involved. principled content, term.7 How impinged hales accused, supposedly ensuring "trial-type" prove proof itself? settled doctrines these ever addressing departure methodology unswerving path charted precedents.8 actions bind seem obligation elucidate standards judged, particularly ineffective alleged. nn. 13, 15, 62 event, Brothers forsaking teaching precedents Fay, respectfully responsibility indirection, explicate contours outer limits formulating. 542, 1712 Brethren, concede derogation sanction confinement principles neither justified calling analysis, conjured up unarticulated legitimately implicated. hardly passes reasoned adjudication, grave disservice litigants it. III 63 Even appearance, affirmed. relies curiam rehearing 2d 634, 637, (1971), proceed protest fact. 508-509.9 Yet applying Hernandez, 340 found Not gone Appeals. stated, (emphasis supplied): 64 Dennison, companion exist incarcerated unless dispensation. 65 well. reveal (the judge's) publicly More reasonably, times material (Respondent's alike employed judge) uniformly adopted district County. points strong likelihood climate acted natural deterrent objections what commonplace assuming implications. scarcely (respondent) voluntarily clothing." 66 Since erroneous, conclusive us deciding merits10 compels affirmance 67 Sub silentio re-evaluating findings concurred re-evaluation supported record. states fear 511, prevalent deterred making objections. Further, omits mention uncontradicted failed perceived futile, elicit acquiesce purposes tactics.11 crucial, "conscious" mentioned dire, informed" knowledge. 510. impliedly relieved inquire actually engaging sympathy. wholly devoid analysis. 68 attention directed Prosecution dire.12 done matter-of-factly highlight prevalence courts. truly sensitive willing, suggested, sustain curious comments provoked reaction mattered "no real case" eyewitnesses "clear consistent." 510 share strength evidence), relieve duty garb,13 case." uncommunicated intentions alleged sensitivity highly questionable six involving months surrounding garb.14 reasonableness perception futile accentuated sheriff explicit arrested. 69 least, knowing climate, think remand development trial.15 None authorities relied approves Several hold, showing overturned ground. Hall Cox, 786 (WD Va.1971); McFalls Peyton, 270 577 Va.1967), aff'd, 401 890 (CA4 1968), 394 951, 1292, 486 brings plight limited range alternatives. Obviously, abort frustrate acts. confronted sort There, understandably counsel, absent exacting implications, counseled 747, 749 72 967, 969, 1270, 1373 (1952). Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 11. Second noted context: "Federal Supreme notice (alleged) below involve rights." Indiviglio, 352 276, 280 (1965), 383 907, 887, 663 (1966). clear: opportunity remedy situation. Henderson Case affirmative steps desire found, circumstances met burden." meaningful author Opinion member panel subsequent Henderson. Indicated: paint broad brush types Each context." had, longstanding members bar, request. Infra, 510-511. Caucasian sixties. hearing, testified felt several consistent. reasonably assumed undertaken. affidavit, stated part: "I occasion request." F.Supp., 338. Counsel occasion, overruled client He seen rigid se. looked injury resulted appearance 468, 471 Xanthull 403 807, 809 (Tex.Crim.App.1966). provided ample reversible 1970 307 903 (SD Tex.), fruitless part. cases, imposed resulting necessary, possible, decide indifference. silence suggestion compulsion. Petitioner contended brief oral argument Should applied retroactively. disposition renders unnecessary claimed, new Both impingement innocence. 511-512. sometimes exercised familiar plain 276 (CA2 1965). Previous federal-law untimely presentation claims. 433-434, 845-846, 837, 865-866 (1963); Henry Mississippi, 443, 451-452, 564, 569, 408, 414-415 consequence, attorney's client. 415; cf. Brookhart Janis, 384 1, 1245, 314 entitlement rely advise validity plea McMann Richardson, 759, 766-771, 1441, 1446-1449, 763, 770-773 white T-shirt with"Harris Jail" stenciled across back, oversized dungarees "Harris down legs, shower thongs. principal sitting "uniform". Record Appeal Tex.Ct. Crim.App. 108, 141 (No. 73-3854). proscribed, cites precedent startling result. area Amendment self-incrimination. Garner 424 648, 1178, 370 (1976). Self-Incrimination speaks individual's witness himself; depend "compulsion." self-incrimination context, required, taken ensure waived. Maness Meyers, 419 449, 466-467, 584, 594-595, 574, 587-588 5, reliance inexplicable. 505. Allen "courts indulge (1938)," "if, warned removed continues behavior, insists conducting disorderly, disruptive, disrespectful Once lost, can, course, reclaimed soon willing decorum inherent proceedings." 343, 1060, 359. requires knowing, voluntary, intelligent applies persons freely choose 505-506, 507-508, mentions free trial) jury." 508. Insofar prevalent, am confident empirical data support statement. explain limitation acknowledged infirmity single reported 655 1971), portray drunk, emphasizing aided defense. strategy cited none tactic. 1176 1972) (noting refer "possibility" remanding hear- ing matter); Anderson 1973) (affirming shown); (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (asserting "often wants jail"; demonstration Barber's Garcia, suggested "common"). instance attorney, employ thereby supports "frequently" "tactic," 508, opinion's myopic "counsel's choice," tactic, justify individuals Cf., 525-529, 2189-2191, 113-116 acknowledging destroys proclaims "(w)e Zerbst," 508 3. assertions, flatly inconsistent precedents, cease. self-representation trials, Faretta 422 806, 2525, 562 (1975), now say appointed exercising represent himself, unaware court-appointed counsel? Powell Alabama, 287 45, 55, 77 158 (1932); (1938); Gideon Wainwright, 792, 799 Argersinger Hamlin, 25, 2006, 530 signaled makes rejects motion speedy violation? 523-530, 2188-2230, 112-116. Or perhaps instructions proves "compulsion"? Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 1881, Camp Arkansas, 69, 307, 223 possibilities legion, explicitly demand Thus, read self-incrimination's notion applicability, abrogating settled. notions pervasive corpus Will eventually overrule adequate review appeal mean "pursue vindication proceeding alone claim," 452, 570, 415 (1965)? gloss confirms fears groundless. Certainly tenet lost demonstrates Supra, 113-116. generally, Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 235-246, 2041, 2051-2057, 867-873 2072, dissenting); 277, 2073, (Marshall, By defining prison-garb compulsion, opens door complete doctrine. phrase conceivably challenges Confrontation introduction hearsay spontaneously inadequate consult concurrence, invokes almost talismanically, indication term connotes. violated them, demonstrating waiver, State. Surely adulterate defaults. 553 4, 1717 knowing-and-deliberate-bypass measuring challenge seized evidence, prosecutor's closing Fay; Kaufman 217, 227 formal 636. "defendant perspective. continued, Ibid.: "In Hernandez' because, past experience, frivolous motion. Hernandez." virtually identical Hernandez. distinguish "suggest 509 4. addition account suspect n.15, No 530, 532-534, 14. "two-court" "long-established lower erroneous. Blau Lehman, 368 408-409, 451, 454-455, (1962); Faulkner Gibbs, 338 267, 70 (1949); Dickinson, 331 745, 751, 1382, 1386, 1789 (1947); Commercial Credit Co., 63, 67, 978 Chemical Foundation, 272 14, 71 131 (1926); Baker Schofield, 243 114, 118, 333, 334, 626 (1917); Towson Moore, 173 17, 332, 597 (1899); Boulden Holman, 478, 480-481, 1138, 1139-1140, 433 (1969)." Neil Biggers, 409 188, 202, 383, 401, (1972) part). implies deterred; number emanating reinforced finding. why reassess certiorari, resolution Only E.g., App. 47-49, 58-59, 62-63; Tr. (concession tactics case). prosecutor, remarks specific panel, "This he's You consideration. shouldn't you feel street second thing, oftentimes out seven eight token, your verdict, supposed straight line, let decision." Exhibits, pp. 30-31. Subsequently again juror, 33: "You heard questions asked. business dressed, time." ignored then, statements moderator, governor assuring proper determining Herron Southern Pacific 283 91, 384, 857, 860 (1931). "Upon conducted solicitude accused." Glasser 315 60, 71, 457, 465, 680, (1942). "If truth sacrificed, exert Geders 80, 87, 1330, 1335, 592. clear, 511-512; 8; 514 devastating pervasive, genuine, invocation "adversary system," 512; 515 certainly escape attention. "(I)f guaranteed serve purpose, mercies incompetent strive maintain performance attorneys representing courts." 771, 1449, 773 553, Exhibits 2-6. 50% Of period. Exhibit 7. Respondent's appearing 58-59. believes delineated analyzed affidavit pursuant Rules Civil Procedure afforded cross-examine matters especially decision, elimination seems highlighted "Whether 'presumption innocence' trial," Pet. Cert. 2, "whether laws," Ante 502 supplied). incongruous, premising suggests, procedural, explored reversing inquiry forecloses 523-526. contention effective contention. addresses remand, declares "ample grounds" 512 8, concededly desiring 11,

Category: 0