People v. Roman
| Decision Date | 20 January 1975 |
| Citation | 365 N.Y.S.2d 527,324 N.E.2d 885,35 N.Y.2d 978 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 324 N.E.2d 885 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rafael ROMAN, Appellant. |
William E. Hellerstein and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for appellant.
Mario Merola, Dist. Atty. (Kenneth P. Olsen, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
At the opening of his trial defendant's counsel requested that defendant be permitted to wear his own street clothing as is usual during the trial. The court refused this request and defendant was obliged to appear during his trial wearing distinctive prison attire, not otherwise described in the record. The District Attorney concedes that the People can advance no reason why it was necessary to try this defendant in prison uniform.
A defendant is presumed innocent and he is entitled to appear in court with the dignity and the self-respect of a free and innocent man. To forbid him to wear his own clothing and to require him to appear in convict's attire--a continuing visual communication to the jury--is to deny him this right. (For cases in other jurisdictions see 41 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, § 239; cf. Bentley v. Crist, 9 Cir., 469 F.2d 854 and cases cited at n. 3; see, also, American Bar Association, Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Trial by Jury, § 4.1(b), App. Draft (1968).) While there may be situations which present problems of implementation of a defendant's request that he not wear prison garb, there is no such circumstance suggested in this case. The fact that the crimes charged here were committed while this defendant was incarcerated, a factor cited by the Trial Judge, makes no difference in our view (semble contra United States ex rel. Stahl v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 472 F.2d 556).
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Term should be reversed, and the case remitted for a new trial.
Order reversed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estelle v. Williams
...in prison, because the jury would learn of his incarceration in any event." 500 F.2d, at 209 n. 5. Contra: People v. Roman, 35 N.Y.2d 978, 365 N.Y.S.2d 527, 324 N.E.2d 885 (1975). Consequently, the courts have refused to embrace a mechanical rule vitiating any conviction, regardless of the ......
-
State ex rel. McMannis v. Mohn
...the jury would learn of his incarceration in any event.' (5 Cir.) 500 F.2d (206), at 209 n. 5. "Contra: People v. Roman, 35 N.Y.2d 978, 365 N.Y.S.2d 527, 324 N.E.2d 885 (1975)." (425 U.S. at 507, 96 S.Ct. at 1694, 48 L.Ed.2d at Here, there is no question that during the course of the trial ......
-
Jefferson v. Laclair
...rights were violated by his appearance in prison garb. Leave App.2d at 1, Docket Entry 5–15 (discussing People v. Roman, 35 N.Y.2d 978, 365 N.Y.S.2d 527, 324 N.E.2d 885 (1975)); id. at 4 (identifying the second topic of the letter as involving “The Fundamental Right To A Fair Trial And Mean......
-
State v. Rose
...at the time of the incident and at the time of the trial. United States v. Henderson, supra, at 557. People v. Roman, 35 N.Y.2d 978, 324 N.E.2d 885, 365 N.Y.S.2d 527 (1975), however, held that when there is no reason to try a defendant in prison garb, the fact that he was charged with a cri......