Replies

It's not going to make a difference in an open and shut case, but the way the defendant looks, the way he carries himself, his or her level of charisma and likability definitely make a difference in more "iffy" cases. These aren't the kinds of things that juries are likely to talk about much or any in their deliberations, but things things certainly are going to have an impact on whether or not a jury believes a defendants testimony, if he or she does in fact testify, or more generally whether jurors will all get the feeling that the person sitting there accused of a crime looks like the type of person who would have done what he is accused of doing. I doubt many of these mock jurors in this study talked about how these mock defendants looked. A lot of them probably didn't even consciously think about how the defendant looked, but I do not doubt that it did have an influence on how they decided the "case" before them.

If you sat for any criminal trials, I wonder if you noticed how the defense attorney referred to his client by the client's first name? He probably did, and the prosecutor likely used the defendants last name when he referred to the defendant. Do you know why that is? The criminal defense attorney is trying to personalize his client. He hopes jurors will identify with his client on some level, hopefully even find his client somewhat likable or at least have some pity on him. The last thing we criminal defense attorneys want is a scary looking client, some shifty eyed nervous acting cretin with tattoos visible all over him. I was appointed to represent one once with devil horns tattooed to his forehead. Believe it or not, he was actually a pretty decent guy. This was just a silly misdemeanor case. This guy hadn't been in any trouble at all in a long time, but he was wild when he was young. He had gotten those tattoos something like twenty years before when he was young and stupid and he really regretted it but could not afford to have them removed. If you shut your eyes and listened to him, he was really quite believable, but as soon as you opened your eyes you just couldn't get past the devil horns. It was a his word against someone else's case and the other person was obviously not being entirely truthful. When the judge made his ruling in the end, he waffled a lot, noting that the accuser had obviously embellished in his account of what happened, but he finally said that he thought there was just enough evidence for a conviction. It was obvious that the judge was really on the fence about whether or not to convict, and I couldn't help but think that if I had a "better defendant" that the outcome would have been different.

Ask any lawyer who takes cases to trial. We believe at least that how our clients and witnesses look and present themselves can make a big difference in whether they will be believed, and it can make a difference in the severity of the punishment if our defendant in a criminal case is convicted, whether it will be a judge or jury that fixes the punishment. You know in a criminal case if they take my client over from the jail in shackles and his striped outfit and let the jury see him like that it is grounds for a mistrial? The case law on that is clear. That's going to make him look guilty. We try to dress them up and make them look as presentable as possible. I've had some who weren't in jail go home and change or have someone bring them clothes, or picked some things out of our closet full of clothes we use to put on our defendants who are in jail or who don't have anything nice to wear. I want them to look like someone grandma wouldn't mind having in the house, because there will be a whole lot of grandmas on the jury. The same types of things are going through our heads when we are deciding which witnesses to put on the stand and which ones to skip or only call as backup witnesses. Whether I'm trying a case looking for a not guilty verdict, or just trying to beat the prosecutor's offer, it matters whether I have a "good defendant" for trial or a "bad defendant," one the jury will like enough to give him the benefit of the doubt on an iffy call or maybe even give him a little break if they convict him, as opposed to one they'll take one look at and jump to the conclusion that he's a lying dirtbag who is guilty as hell who ought to get hammered hard when it comes time for sentencing.

These things apply in plea negotiations too. Most of my clients in criminal cases are going to be guilty and just want me to get them the best deal I can get them. Often one of the things I'm doing when I'm dealing with the prosecutor is trying to get him to identify on some level with my client. I may want him to put himself in my clients shoes. Maybe I'm trying to get the prosecutor to think about what he would want to happen to a wayward friend or relative who had gotten himself in the same spot. I'm hoping generally that the prosecutor will see the redeeming qualities in my client. If my client is a relatively clean cut kid from a decent neighborhood, maybe from a decent family, it's going to be a lot easier to sell the prosecutor on giving my client a good deal. The prosecutor is more likely to feel maybe just a little empathy for him and maybe be a little more hopeful that this person will change his ways and sin no more. If my client is rough looking, comes from bad neighborhood, comes from a family of losers, it's going to be more of an uphill battle for me. If my client is black or Hispanic, I'm going to have a lot harder time getting the prosecutor to identify with him because none of our prosecutors or anyone in their office, or anyone employed at the courthouse for that matter are black or Hispanic. I don't think looks make a huge difference in the treatment people will get from jurors, judges, or prosecutors, but looks do matter some, along with a lot of other factors that really shouldn't factor in in a perfect world. But that's just the way the cookie crumbles.