Defense or prosecution?

[JustADude]

Please tell me how the two are related.

If guy can't even be bothered to stuff a button-down shirt, slacks, and dress shoes into a duffel bag to take with him and change in the bathroom, plus wears a shirt that has connotations of a derogatory attitude towards women, it calls into question exactly how high his standard of 'upstanding' is when he says the accused is an upstanding citizen.

Already did, in the next sentence. Or did you not bother reading the whole post before you got your back up because I said some people think strip clubs were bad? You're acting like a SC that's been told something they disagree with. Just because you don't think something is fair, or that it shouldn't be the way it is, doesn't mean it isn't so.

I'm sorry to sound harsh, but PEOPLE JUDGE ON APPEARANCES. It's how the human condition works. It happens everywhere, not just the court room. We can't afford to take the time to do an in-depth study of everything we look at, so we make our assessments based on superficial cues. Wearing jeans and a strip club t-shirt to court projects a certain image, one which is decidedly at odds with the goals of his testimony, and would project nearly as bad an image if it were any other kind of t-shirt.

Aside from the stereotypes of strip club patrons, which may or may not be true, but still exist, there is still the other issue, which you have completely blown off by coming up with hypothetical excuses. The man was dressed inappropriately for the court-room, plain and simple. Yes, there may be any of a huge array of extenuating circumstances to why the guy showed up in a t-shirt and jeans, but it's most likely that he, like people who show up to interviews severely under-dressed, has no concept of appropriate behavior.

[myswtghst]

Aside from the stereotypes of strip club patrons, which may or may not be true, but still exist, there is still the other issue, which you have completely blown off by coming up with hypothetical excuses. The man was dressed inappropriately for the court-room, plain and simple.

Exactly. I completely agree.

[Rapscallion]

Whoa, folks! This one's turning into a slanging match. Shutdown will be initiated if that continues.

Rapscallion

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

I'm with the people who think it monumentally stupid to wear a strip club t-shirt to a court trial.

We can talk about clothing and first impressions and how people shouldn't judge based on what somebody is wearing in a certain situation al we want, but I think it's largely human nature to do so. Humans are not always rational and first impressions do count.

Of course the guy can wear anything he wants to court to testify about his friend, but that doesn't mean he should. I have the right to communicate solely via armpit farts, but that wouldn't be the right thing to do. Certain situations call for certain decorum.

[NightAngel]

It should also be taken into account that all the jurors have and ever will have to make a decision about this guy is the first impression. They aren't really given a chance to hang out with the witnesses (and for good reason).

The plain and simple truth is that there are times in life where the first impression you give is everything.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

ITA, a simple T-Shirt should have no weight whatsoever in determining someone's credibility. And like it was said before, maybe he doesn't have any nicer clothes, or any other list of reasons that could be given. A jury is supposed to be impartial and unbiased, not a fashion panel for Next Top Model IMO.

You're right, it shouldn't. But it's a sad fact of life that it does. Life's not fair and the world is a brutal place. That's just a fact.

"As yet, NOTHING has been mentioned of this person's testimony and people are automatically labeling this guy a scumbag because of what he wore. It may be considered in poor taste, but this is not the guy on trial, and we don't know the circumstances surrounding his appearance in court. For all we know he got a subpoena 2 hours before he had to be there and he lives 3 hours away. Maybe his house burned down 3 days ago and those are the only clothes he has. There is no way to know what caused him to wear what he wore, and should not be a factor in determining credibility. "

Nobody specifically labled him a scumbag at all. I am simply calling into question the lack of judgement the guy exhibited in showing up dressed like this.

Maybe his house DID burn down. I know I can get a pack of three plain white t-shirts for about 10 bucks. Less, if I go to the dollar store.

Frankly, I'm suprised the defense lawyer didn't buy him a better shirt.

"Personal prejudice has no place in the justice system."

And yet, personal prejudice rampant in real life. So unfortunately, it's also saturating the judicial system. Which is exacly why he should change his shirt before letting the jury see him. See above statement about the unfairness of life. How it ought to be and how it is are two very different things.

[Banrion]

And yet, personal prejudice rampant in real life. So unfortunately, it's also saturating the judicial system. Which is exacly why he should change his shirt before letting the jury see him. See above statement about the unfairness of life. How it ought to be and how it is are two very different things.

Which is why I stand by position, that if I ever end up in any sort of situation that requires a court to resolve, I am waiving my right to a jury trial and requesting a bench trial. At the very least a judge is educated in the law, and is very unlikely to buy into any cockamamie sob stories as he/she has seen and heard them all 1000 times before. Juries are emotional and uneducated in regards to the law.

[cinema guy]

At the very least a judge is educated in the law, and is very unlikely to buy into any cockamamie sob stories

The judge who sued for $67 million for his pants was absolutely rational, unemotional would have nothing to do with cockamamie sob stories.

In an ideal world, both judges and jurors will be unemotional, unbiased and rationally consider what they've heard in court. And

[Banrion]

The judge who sued for $67 million for his pants was absolutely rational, unemotional would have nothing to do with cockamamie sob stories.

In an ideal world, both judges and jurors will be unemotional, unbiased and rationally consider what they've heard in court. And

That man was not a judge for long. IIRC He had just been elected around the time of his frivolous lawsuit, and is now being disbarred for that lawsuit.

[kibbles]

We can't afford to take the time to do an in-depth study of everything we look at

IMO, in a situation where a person's life and reputation is at stake (trial/courtroom), people should make the time to do an in-depth study of a person. In that situation I don't think the saying "we can't afford to take the time" applies IMO.

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

IMO, in a situation where a person's life and reputation is at stake (trial/courtroom), people should make the time to do an in-depth study of a person. In that situation I don't think the saying "we can't afford to take the time" applies IMO.

Okay, so what information should be part of this "in depth" study, and how should we get it if we don't get it from the witnesses?

It's pretty easy to say that should be done, but how do you get this informaation after testimony has ended and you have to reach a verdict? You can't just call in new witnesses at that point.

Not trying to be mean here, just trying to get you to flesh out your thinking here.

The point some people seem to be missing is that there are certain realities about the judicial process and the way people formulate opinions about people based on first impressions, that are very difficult if not impossible to change. So the easier way to deal with these and make yourself seem a little more trustworthy is to dress professionally when going into court to testify on behalf of a friend.

[auntiem]

Frankly, I'm suprised the defense lawyer didn't buy him a better shirt.

Exactlly! I've been reading this and thinking "Man, this guy has a lousy lawyer - he didn't bother to prep the witness or think to bring a button down shirt just in case?".

Oh, and I just got called for jury duty and we had a dress code just to show up to find out if we were going to be on a jury and watch the film.

[kibbles]

Okay, so what information should be part of this "in depth" study, and how should we get it if we don't get it from the witnesses?

IMO, they're actual testimony, especially their voice tone when giving this actual testimony. I'm not disputing the guy made a poor judgement, nor am I disputing the fact that the justice system is unfair in its assumptions, I was just saying that I don't think it should and more attention should be paid to the witnesses actual testimony.

And for the record, I don't think you were being mean at all.

[Gurndigarn]

IMO, they're actual testimony, especially their voice tone when giving this actual testimony. I'm not disputing the guy made a poor judgement, nor am I disputing the fact that the justice system is unfair in its assumptions, I was just saying that I don't think it should and more attention should be paid to the witnesses actual testimony.

While voice tone is one of the better ways to make that judgement call, it's not flawless. Some people are better actors than others, and it shows in their voice while under stressful situations.

Jury duty is a tough call. Consider how little the jury has to go on to determine how reliable a testimony is:

How they look.
How they act.
What their relationship to the accuser/defendent is.
Any civic/business positions or awards the lawyers manage to get mentioned.

So, which of these should the jury use to determine credibility? They all have their problems. But on the other hand... you really, really can't trust the witnesses unconditionally. Let's face it: we work retail. We've seen the lies that SCs will give you. They're not going to stop lying just because they're under oath.

(BTW: If you want to skip jury trials for yourself, I have no problem. But I'ld rather keep the option for myself. I suspect that a judge who deals with the worst SCs almost non-stop is far more likely to be cynical and not willing to listen than an entire dozen non-judges.)

[Shabo]

Ok, few things here.

In a criminal trial, the prosecuter has the burden of proving guilt. Defense attorneys will prep the witness telling them what to wear, how to answer questions, how to act, when to move around the court, etc. A great defense attorney will have the witness so well prepped that the witness will be a great defender for the defendant.

I'm thinking that this is a crappy defense attorney, or extenuating circumstances, but man, that was a bad idea on the part of the witness.

In a courtroom, all people have to judge you by is your appearance and your acting. They are far less likely to hold you credible as a witness if you come in wearing anything less then a button down shirt and slacks, regardless of what the logo on the shirt says. Court attire should always be business casual as a minimum, and that doesn't mean "Jeans Friday" casual.

Sorry, but I'm totally with the majority of the posters. There's far more weight on a negative appearance then there is on a positive appearance. It's more like, if you show up in appropriate business casual attire, you are at the same number of credibility points as when you walked in. Bonus points for a suit. Negative points for being too casual. In a situation where there's little other factors available to determine character, appearance matters a lot. Lawyers know this, and that's why the prep their witnesses to dress nicely.