A man convicted more than eight years ago of sodomy and rape of a child will get a new trial because he tore his street clothing before trial and appeared before a jury wearing jail garb.
The Utah Supreme Court, in an opinion released Friday, said it ruled 19 years ago that defendants are entitled to appear before juries in civilian clothes unless they specifically request to wear jail clothing or other clothing. The court said trial judges have a duty to ensure that defendants who want to appear before juries in jail or prison clothes make a conscious and intelligent decision to do so.
"As is well understood, the wearing of prison clothes by a defendant during trial is highly suggestive of guilt to some observers," wrote Justice Michael D. Zimmerman. "No defendant should incur that risk absent an informed and conscious choice."
In October 1991 when Eugene Reed Bennett was transported from jail to 3rd District Court for trial, he was given the clothing he wore when he was booked into jail. However, he had gained weight during his incarceration, and when he attempted to put the clothing on he tore his pants. The only other clothing available was his jail clothing, a blue jumpsuit with the words "Tooele County Jail" stenciled in large block letters across the back. He wore the jail jumpsuit during jury selection and the first portion of his trial.
On the second day of trial, Bennett's mother brought civilian clothing to court, which Bennett wore. However, the jury convicted him of two counts of sodomy and one count of rape of a child.
On the first trial day, Bennett's court-appointed attorney did not request a continuance or delay until civilian clothing could be brought to court. Judge Tyrone Medley also failed to inquire why Bennett was wearing jail clothing.
"Absent such an inquiry and a reasoned determination that such an appearance is necessary, automatic reversal is the consequence," Zimmerman wrote.
State prosecutors urged the high court to overturn the decision it reached on the issue in 1980. Unless that ruling was overturned, prosecutors agreed that Bennett's conviction should be reversed.
Four justices refused to reverse the 1980 decision regarding defendants wearing jail clothing in front of juries, saying there was no compelling argument that the original ruling was wrong or that more harm than good comes from adhering to that standard.
"No one suggests that prisoners should appear in jail garb or that it is not highly prejudicial," Zimmerman said.
Bennett's case is the only one since that ruling to raise the issue of a defendant wearing jail clothing. The court noted that since the 1980 ruling, judges and attorneys have "taken care of the problem nicely."
The only dissension came from 7th District Judge Lyle R. Anderson, who was sitting in for Justice I. Daniel Stewart. Anderson said most trial judges are unaware of the rule, that the rule differs from other precedent and is forcing Bennett's victims to "relive and recount (Bennett's) reign of terror or (he) will go free."
Shortly after Bennett's conviction he wrote a letter to 3rd District Court expressing a desire to appeal. The letter was misplaced, and it was only after it was discovered several years later that the Supreme Court reinstated his appeal.