Here's an interesting legal argument

“Saffer argues uniforms sway jurors,
Dean to serve one year

Drew Tanner
Staff Writer
In a pre-trial hearing on Friday, attorney Martin Saffer argued police officers unfairly sway the jury when testifying in uniform.
Saffer's argument was part of a motion filed in his defense of Lisa K. Brewer, 30, of Hillsboro, who awaits trial for drug trafficking charges.
Saffer argued before Circuit Court Judge James Rowe that the effect law enforcement uniforms have on jurors is "beyond due-process conscience," and that officers testifying before a jury should wear civilian clothes. To support his argument, Saffer cited a West Virginia Supreme Court opinion stating defendants should not be required to wear orange prison jumpsuits and during jury trials, and incarcerated witnesses should not be required to wear handcuffs..
"The obverse must be true," contended Saffer.
Licensed psychologist Katherine Ball, of Summersville, testified on the effects of uniforms on jurors, citing two studies published in psychology journals and an article from a Federal Bureau of Investigation bulletin.
The studies cited by Ball led her to conclude that uniforms consistently play into people's preconceived notions regarding authority.
On his cross examination, Prosecuting Attorney Walt Weiford contended the different preconceived notions of individual jurors and their perception of authority figures did not necessarily mean they would have the same reactions to the testimony of a law enforcement officer. Some jurors may have had negative experiences with police officers in the past, Weiford noted.
Weiford also noted that while a juror might perceive an officer to be in a position of authority, that juror may or may not view the officer as a credible witness. If the court were to scrutinize the appearance of police officers, Weiford suggested, "the court should then examine the dress of each witness" for clothing or adornment jurors might identify with or react to.
"My argument is proved by the state's opposition to it," Saffer told Rowe. "The state wants the appearance of authority because the state wants the jury to believe‹hook, line and sinker‹every word that comes out of [an officer's] mouth."
"We all wear uniforms," Rowe noted. Using Saffer's own words, Rowe referred to the oath taken by each witness and the examination and cross-examination of a witness as "the crucible of truthful testimony." Rowe chose to defer his ruling on the matter and gave each side 10 days to submit decisions from higher courts regarding such an argument.”

“Interesting argument. Saffer might have a point that uniformed police officers connote authority. But then, so do attorneys in suits and judges in robes. Everyone is playing a role in a trial, be it judge, attorney, police officer, civilian witness. If we follow this argument, then maybe all people who participate in a trial should be required to wear the same outfit. Maybe everyone could be issued bathrobes as they walk into the courtroom.

I tend to think that the police officers should be allowed to continue to testify in uniform.

In my own court experience, police officers are usually testifying while they are on duty anyway. They often leave the courtroom after testifying and continue on with their shift.”

“thats true Ruby, to make them change clothes would seem a little silly, but I also think the lawyer may have a pretty good point.

Maybe they should blindfold the jury.

Afterall Justice is Blind, right?”

“Blindfold the jury and offer them a cigarette?”

“there was a line in this movie I saw on TV this summer:

"Hell, Justice isn't blind, she's embarrassed!, thats why she can't look"”

“When I do expert witness testimony I always wear a suit.

Perhaps everyone on the witness stand should be nude?”

“I know it's a joke, but if they blindfold the jury, they won't be able to read the demeanor of the witnesses, a crucial part in determining their credibility and the weight to give to the testimony of a witness.

I can understand his point. I'm rather surprised that it hasn't been brought up before now.

But I'm not convinced, as was stated in the article, that a uniformed police officer is always going to connote a positive impression with each and every juror. And at the end of a trial, the jury is given what's called instructions, which guide them in their deliberations. If a police officer testifying in uniform was thought to be an issue, the attorney can request that an instruction be read to the jury on that issue. By doing so, the attorney then preserves that point to bring up on appeal if he deems it necessary.”

“What do you qualify as an expert in, VioliN?”

“I've seen officers in uniform have their testimony picked apart on the stand. That's the way competent lawyers deal with the issue, assuming their client has a leg to stand on. I guess when your client's a lying, drug dealing sack of s***, you take another route.

I also agree with the premise that some jurors, perhaps more than "some," would place negative credence on uniformed police officers.”

““What do you qualify as an expert in, VioliN?”
RubyRedBloodyMary

Virus links, festering feet, turds in pack, trolls, lots of things like that.”

“LOL

Yes, that kind of subject matter comes up quite often in trial!!!”

“If that argument holds true then the defendant should show up in the clothes he was arrested in, no hair cut, no shaving the ZZ Top beard, no removing piercings.”

“It's not that often, but whenever it does, there's only one expert witness to call.”

“Ooops, I was responding to Ruby. Tango stepped between us.”

“Whoops”

“Good point, Tango. (And may I compliment you on your name?)”

“I tend to agree with Tango on that point, the skuzzballs should look like skuzzballs on the stand, not prep school boys or girls!”

“Thank you on both counts RRBM! Sometimes I almost didn't even recognize the defendant the change was so dramatic”

“Juries here in the Los Angeles area have experienced both uniformed officers and 'suited' detectives testifying in high profile cases (Rodney King and OJ Simpson trials). As I remember it, the opposition did a good job of discrediting the police in both trials regardless of their wardrobe (the officers tstified in suits and ties).

Specifically in the King trial, uniformed officers from other agencies (CHP) who were at the scene testified they thought Mr. King recieved 'excessive treatment' after he was under control of the LAPD. And that videotape of LA police beating Mr. King didn't help them either.

We recently had another 'videotape' case where Inglewood city police officers slammed a defendant into a car hood and punched him in the face. Both officers involved in the case came to court in suits, not in police uniforms (ended in a hung jury situation twice).”