Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Patton Boggs Hires D.C. Consultant and Lobbyist James Kemp | Main | Former Akin Gump Adviser Attacked Over Firm Ties in Wisconsin Senate Race »

September 13, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e2017c31d6b482970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Glasses an Issue in Appeal Over Public Defender Intern's Slaying:

Comments

Brown v. Board

So does the same rule apply to hair cuts? How about suits? Why not just have the jury be instructed that the defendant altered their appearance because everyone is used to seeing them with uncombed hair and a orange jumpsuit. That is a prejudice and the appeal should be granted.

Follow-up

Let me get this straight: The WaPo article says that defense lawyers in DC routinely give glasses to their clients to wear during trial. Unlike, say, a nice suit, glasses imply an objective medical/physical condition about their client -- they imply that the client has poor sight such that he needs the glasses to function and such that the jury should infer he was wearing them at the time of the crime.
How can this possibly be permissible under the DC bar rules forbidding dishonesty? And why should the system sanction such a fraud against the jury? There should be a disbarment proceeding, not an appeal!

Captain Kirk

Ummm, so instead of issuing the instruction, couldn't the trial judge simply have asked the defendant to remove his glasses, and asked the witnesses to take a look at him without them? Or, taken a look at the glasses his/herself to see if they were non-prescription, and if so, asked the defendant to remove them for the remainder of the trial?

Dianne Weiss

Appearances are deceiving. Personally, I think that Harris is guilty. However, I can't help but to be amazed that his attorney actually thought of tweaking his appearance as a strategy. Well-played. We all saw what you did there, Kiersh.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements