Thompson v. State, 1D14–5770.

• Citation: 192 So.3d 711
• Decision Date: 07 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1D14–5770.,1D14–5770.
• Parties: George THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

192 So.3d 711

George THOMPSON, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D14–5770.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 7, 2016.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Kathleen Stover and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

MAKAR

, J.

Appellant George Thompson was charged with aggravated stalking after court order. He was convicted after a jury trial in which two heavily-edited videos were shown of his first appearances in criminal court in jail garb in front of a judge who instructed him to have no contact with the victim. Despite the judicial admonition, Thompson made repeated phone calls to her (fifty-one from jail in one day alone) and continued his stalking of the victim while incarcerated and upon release. The trial judge in this case ruled that the probative value of the videos (showing that Thompson was explicitly instructed to have no contact) outweighed their prejudice (showing Thompson in jail garb), which Thompson claims was error and deprived him of a fair trial.

As a general matter, Thompson is correct that showing him in jail clothing during his criminal jury trial undermines the presumption of innocence to which he is entitled.

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 504, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976)

(noting that “[c]ourts have, with few exceptions, determined that an accused should not be compelled to go to trial in prison or jail clothing because of the possible impairment of the presumption that is so basic to the adversary system”) (footnote omitted); see also

Hayes v. State, 140 So.3d 1106, 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“[I]t is error for the trial court to compel a defense witness to appear in jail or prison clothing if the defendant objects.”). Here, he was not required to wear jail clothing during the trial, he committed a portion of the charged crime while in jail (the repeated jailhouse phone calls), and the videos were edited to include only the limited portions where he was told (and said he understood) that he was to have no contact with the victim. But playing the video and accompanying audio allowed the prosecutor to use the visual and aural imprimatur of the first appearance judge as a quasi-witness against Thompson, which is prejudicial. The potential for error could have been reduced by simply allowing the jury to review a stipulation or transcription of what the first appearance judge told Thompson (that might have allowed Thompson to claim he didn't understand the...