The minutiae of the O.J. Simpson trial are everywhere.
People catch the trial proceedings on CNN or Court TV.Some are fascinated by a real courtroom.
Others are learning more about the law than they ever wanted to know. . . .
And a discriminating few are even focusing on the flamboyant dress of several of the attorneys - the double-breasted suits and designer ties of lead defense attorney Johnnie Cochran; the fashionable suits, short skirts and changing hair styles of prosecutor Marcia Clark; the new shaped and layered hairdo of defense attorney Robert Shapiro (who also got a manicure and a pedicure). Short, mop-topped, boyish-looking Barry Scheck - the glib New York attorney who is the defense team's DNA specialist - stands out in his old, boxy, double-breasted suits. The three suits he brought from New York have been derisively compared to something out of "Guys and Dolls."
All of this would be uncharacteristic of a British courtroom, where barristers continue to dress in wigs and gowns. The gown is a standard shroud made of course, itchy cotton. The headpiece, consisting of gray, tight curls, is worn atop the hair, low on the forehead. It tends to sit askew in the summer heat.
If lawyers on this side of the ocean dressed in such defiantly unglamorous ways, no TV network would touch them. In fact, American lawyers are very sensitive to matters of appearance in the courtroom.
In the 1985 movie "Jagged Edge," attorney Glenn Close tells her client, portrayed by Jeff Bridges, who is accused of murdering his wife, to wear a dark blue suit for his court appearance. In fact, a trial consultant might have warned against it.
According to a study conducted by Litigation Sciences, a Los Angeles consulting firm, jurors think dark blue is the most "powerful" color - on both women and men. Obviously, a defendant in a murder case would be advised to play down power.
FAMILY EXTRA
In real life defendants have made similar mistakes. Heidi Fleiss, nicknamed the Hollywood Madam, wore a beige silk wraparound dress that was not only low cut but kept falling open to reveal her thigh. She also wore very high heels and dark sunglasses through much of the proceedings. Such a sexy outfit got her TV coverage in the evenings, but it also made the jury more likely to characterize her as a procurer of sex for money.
Consultants who advise lawyers about jury selection and other aspects of a case are expensive, charging several thousand dollars to get involved in a case and several hundred dollars a day for the duration of the trial. As a result, they tend to be used only in the most celebrated cases.
Robert Hirschorn is one of the best known, having worked for the defense in such well-publicized cases as the William Kennedy Smith rape trial, the ethics hearings of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and the murder trial of Marlon Brando's son Christian. All three cases resulted in acquital.
Hirschorn, a witty, forceful personality who has been a consultant since 1984, says the lawyers he advises accept his suggestions 95 percent of the time. But what he's really dispensing, he says, is "common sense."
Courtroom appearance and demeanor are subjects Hirschorn has strong views about.
"Fashion and dress," he says without equivocation, "absolutely have an impact. There was a study done in 1992 by the National Law Journal which suggested that 25 percent of all jurors are influenced by the lawyer they liked the most. The only time they talk to lawyers is during the jury selection process. The rest of the time they are analyzing the lawyers from the soles of their shoes to the tops of their heads."
Hirschorn remembers a case he tried in the 1980s. He believed sincerely in the innocence of his two clients, who nevertheless were found guilty. Afterward, Hirschorn asked jury members why. They said, "We noticed that when their wives were in the courtroom, the clients were wearing their wedding bands. When their wives were NOT in the courtroom, they were NOT wearing their wedding bands. If they would lie to their wives, they would lie to us."
Hirschorn was floored.
"In another case that we won, we asked what the jurors were thinking. They said there was one lawyer they didn't trust. You know why? Because he wore short-sleeved shirts!"
Since then, Hirschorn has concluded that juries scrutinize everything a lawyer says, does or wears. With respect to the Simpson case, he has his own theory regarding Marcia Clark, who has changed her hair twice during the course of the trial.
"She went from the harsh look to softer curls, and now to straight hair. I think she did it intentionally - because one of her key witnesses, criminalist Dennis Fung, was getting beaten up on the witness stand. I believe it was a deliberate move on her part to take attention away from him. It's an indication of desperation. It was such a dramatic change. She's saying, `Let them wonder why I changed my hair instead of what Dennis Fung is saying.' "
Lisa Michelle Church, a trial lawyer who serves as president of Utah's Women Lawyers Association, strongly disagrees with Hirschorn.
"I don't think Marcia Clark changing her hairdo is an intentional tool on her part. The press has shown a disappointing amount of attention to her dress and hairstyle. Women would like it not to be an issue. Marcia Clark has a lot more important things to think about. I don't think that would have even crossed my mind. I think the curly hairdo she had before this one was soft. In the courtroom, I'm worried about arguments and not my jewelry or my hair. I don't want to say appearance is not a factor, because it is, but it is not more of a factor for women. Society is just more obsessed with women's fashion than men's."
Ruth Lybbert, also a local attorney, says, "The focus by the press on the appearance of Marcia Clark tells you a lot about how we view women in the law. It is a societal thing. We continue to talk about women's dress whether we are talking about a lawyer or a wife. The fact that Marcia Clark is on TV all the time has made it more likely for us to criticize her as if she were a movie star rather than a lawyer."
Lybbert's claim is strengthened by a story by Bella Stumbo in the New York Times Magazine. She quoted Robert Shapiro, who called Clark "an attractive lady." He added, "You can write that you said she had great legs - and that I agreed."
Hirschorn has other strong views about appearance. "Lawyers that wear double-breasted suits are too slick. Lawyers who buff their nails are too slick."
Still, there are cases that call for a lawyer to dress in a flamboyant way. In Hirschorn's opinion, Simpson's lead defense counsel, Johnnie Cochran, is consciously making a fashion statement. "He wants to distract the jury. He wants the jury to wonder what color tie Johnnie will wear tomorrow. Except for the Simpson case, though, I would never recommend it."
Hirschorn believes attorneys' dress should not contrast too sharply from that of the jury. It is important that attorneys remember they are always trying to sell the jury on the merits of their cases - not on their dress. Therefore, women should avoid wearing low-cut blouses or short skirts, and men should avoid wearing gold Rolex watches and diamond pinky rings.
Hirschorn says he is especially impressed with noted Miami trial lawyer Roy Black, who tried the William Kennedy Smith case. "Black's successful enough that he can walk into a courtroom with a pinky ring or a Rolex, but he wouldn't dare do it, because he checks his ego outside the courtroom door."
It is Hirschorn's opinion that ego creates a barrier between the attorney and the jury."
Even though Black has utilized Hirschorn's suggestions, he doesn't put as much stock in the trial consultant as Hirschorn does. "I think the jurors expect you to be well-dressed. They would be shocked if Cochran wore outfits he bought at Sears."
The dress of defendants, however, can be tricky. Black cites the Menendez brothers, who wore sweaters in the courtroom, as the classic case. "Sweaters," he says, "took away a lot of the harshness. The jurors had a little more empathy for them. Killing your parents with shotguns is a horrifying thought. Wearing $3,000 suits would create a bad impression for jurors."
That is not to say Black thinks all defendants should dress down with sweaters in the courtroom. He sees nothing wrong, for instance, in Simpson attending the trial dressed in expensive suits, because it is assumed jurors know that Simpson is wealthy.
"He is well dressed and has an outstanding physique. I don't think you could put him in a sweater - the jurors might think it is a ploy. If jurors ever think it is a show, then you're in trouble."
Black agrees with Hirschorn about Clark's hairdo, which he says has changed from harsh to soft. "I think it's more feminine now, more pleasing. Anything that is pleasing helps you."
But his own demeanor is something else. Black recalls that during the Smith trial, a fashion consultant whom he had never met falsely asserted that Black called her every morning to ask her what he should wear. When he tracked her down in Maryland, through the Associated Press, she told him she had been misquoted.
"I thought it was amusing. People have to be in bad shape if they want to take credit for dressing me. I have to say, though, that the Simpson attorneys dress better than I have ever seen in a courtroom. Cochran has made it possible for attorneys to wear great ties. Barry Scheck is interesting, too, because he wears those ancient, baggy suits that are known on the East Coast as the armor of the courtroom."
The only fashion effort Black makes is to avoid being outrageous. He considers himself a little more dressed up than he used to be because his wife is a cosmetician, and she thinks he should wear more color.
"The main thing is, if you're comfortable wearing it, it will work. If you try to do something that is not you, it won't work. I don't know if a pinstripe banker's uniform fits Johnnie Cochran."
Hirschorn thinks a trial's opening statement calls out for some pizzazz. "Then you can wear power ties and flashy suits. You want the jury to think you're powerful and that you have a powerful case."
Unfortunately, says Hirschorn, only 5 percent of trial lawyers carefully think about matters of appearance or fashion. They often fail to consider their case from the jury's perspective and concentrate too much on making a point or following a set of rules.
"They need to walk a mile in the jurors' box."
He is convinced that 70 percent of communication is nonverbal. "It is not what a juror hears but what he sees with his eyes. If we go back to what our parents taught us, first impressions are lasting impressions. That's why you want to make a good first impression on your jury. Attorneys should be thinking, `If I were a juror, how would I want the lawyer to look if I were to trust him or her?' "
There are still ticklish aspects to fashion, especially as applied to witnesses. Hirschorn says he used to tell witnesses to dress "as if they were going to church," but he stopped doing that when many people failed to dress predictably. "One guy wore a three-piece, white suit."
On the other hand, some witnesses may be inclined to dress down. Hirschorn thinks Kato Kaelin, a Simpson witness who lived on Simpson's property, "was a cross between Gilligan and Bozo. Kaelin should have gotten a haircut and put on some nice clothes. Instead, he acted as if he were auditioning for a TV show, and he just hurt the prosecution."
Lybbert considers Hirschorn's views a bit strong, although she believes it is essential to prepare clients and witnesses to make acceptable appearances.
"I don't mean that in a manipulative way, but as a piece of the puzzle in a trial strategy. I don't always want a client to look a certain way. I have no problem with a service station attendant dressing as one in a trial - if that is what he wears normally."
Lybbert adds, "Most criminal defendants are in jail, and they may not have a nice suit to put on. It's probably better if they do. Jurors do form impressions at the outset, but as the trial goes on - and they hear facts - those things become less important. They have a lot on their minds besides dress."
Lybbert herself dresses very conservatively for a trial - in a suit. "I may wear pants or a sweater and skirt or a dress at other times - but in the courtroom, I'm always in business-like attire. Neither witnesses nor lawyers should dress in such a way as to detract from what they are saying or raise questions about their credibility."
Fred Metos, a Salt Lake criminal attorney, leans toward the Hirschorn interpretation. He says, "How a defendant acts and looks in a courtroom impacts a jury. You want a jury to identify with the defendant to get good results. If the jury does not like your client, you will have an uphill battle."
As a result, Metos always tells a client to "look nice for court," even though there are dangers. "I've had people who thought wearing double-breasted suits without a tie - and gold chains - is the epitome of good fashion."
Metos thinks appropriate dress for lawyers may differ by case and locality. The type of dress that works in rural Utah may be different than it is in federal court in Salt Lake City.
"That isn't disrespect. You don't see a lot of Italian double-breasted suits in San Juan County. But blue pinstripes and white shirts are appropriate. If you look flashy, people think you're shallow."
He thinks that looking rumpled and worn may even be advisable for certain court appearances. An attorney may want to dress more fashionably when trying to impeach a witness and more conservatively, even "earnest," when delivering a closing statement.
Metos believes Cochran is dressing for his Los Angeles audience in the Simpson case. "If he were trying that same case in more conservative Palm Springs, you would see him wearing something very different. And Simpson is trying to look like a respectable citizen. The jury doesn't expect him to wear rags and jail clothes."
Paul Warner, a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in Salt Lake City, adheres to generally accepted standards within the prosecution community. "The prosecutor," he says, "carries the burden of proof, whereas the defense attorney doesn't have to prove anything. That is a very high standard - to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. There is an expectation that we will be fair, that we represent all the people. The defense attorney is usually given a little more slack by the jury. If the prosecutor appears too aggressive, he may seem vindictive, and jurors generally don't like that."
Warner recalls his very first trial. When he talked to the jurors afterward, some said, "You know, it just seemed you wanted to convict that guy too much." Warner never forgot that, and ever since he has carefully considered all factors that may influence a jury.
"My basic approach as a prosecutor is that I never want the jury to pay much attention to what I'm wearing." He doesn't want his dress to be either so flamboyant or so unappealing that it will attract attention - because the jury will not be concentrating on what he is saying.
Warner believes jurors pay attention to the jewelry someone wears. Therefore a prosecutor should not wear expensive jewelry even if he or she can afford it.
"We don't want them to think, `Where does this guy get the money to wear a Rolex watch?' Generally speaking, we like to convey anywhere from mainstream to conservative attire. I know some prosecutors who will dress down a bit in a courtroom - a nice suit the first day, and then occasionally a sport coat - to show they are middle-of-the-road."
Appearance plays a part with witnesses, as well, Warner says. Someone who is wearing "dirty work clothes and hasn't shaved or bathed, may not project an image of credibility. It may turn off a juror. We want people to look appropriate for a federal courtroom. It's a special place - but you don't want to overdress either. If you have a tradesman, and you put him in a suit he is uncomfortable in, jurors may perceive you're trying to put something over on them. A lot of people wear a casual shirt and a nice pair of slacks, and it seems to fit their grammar and style. A person who wears a coat and tie will typically wear one. If I have someone who doesn't own a suit, I'm not going to ask him to buy one."
Similarly, Warner believes clothing may play a role in a prosecutor's responsibility to persuade. He is not very worried about hairdos, unless they are extreme. "There are not very many prosecutors with pony tails, shoulder-length hair or even beards. Your values are reflected through your clothes and hair style."
Warner hastens to add that there are many things just as important in the courtroom as dress. "I know a defense lawyer who is very active with body language. He will feign to be asleep at the counsel table. He will act totally disinterested in the testimony - complete boredom. He is trying to send a message to the jury that they shouldn't be interested in this. There are a lot of tricks of body language that go with what attorneys wear. Persuasion is a very subtle thing."
Warner works on persuasion constantly - and so does every other attorney. The presentation of a case is more apt to succeed if lawyers are dressed and coifed with subtle good taste - whether they can afford a trial consultant or not. That's because fashion has an often unspoken yet undeniable link to our system of justice.