Box v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When someone appears in prison garb, the decision of the jury may well be based upon his or her prior conviction or status as someone held in custody. In Estelle, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that when an accused is forced to wear prison garb, the jury might be prejudiced, and that the wearing of such attire serves no useful State purpose. Clemmons, supra. This is because once the jury sees the defendant in clothing implying he is a criminal, they may assume he is, and the jury will be biased. The danger in this case is greater than where a prisoner is seen in county-jail clothing. Here, Box appeared in the white uniform of an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate, which showed he was a convicted and incarcerated felon. It might be tempting to enter into argument about whether an average venire member would know the difference in prisoner clothing between that worn by a county inmate and that worn in prison, but such an argument begs the question and discounts the importance of the concern at issue, that of a fair trial. Someone who comes into court in Arkansas in a prison uniform may well be recognized as a sentenced convicted felon, and that is the danger. There is nothing to be gained by trying someone in prison garb. Here, the motivation was to accommodate the jury and save time.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Flores v. State

2. “[N]o jury had been chosen or charged. There was no reason to bring a motion for mistrial because there was nothing as yet that could be mistried. The relief sought is obvious. Box moved for a continuance to allow time to obtain civilian clothing. Without question the issue is preserved for review. ■ We also note that the trial court overruled Box’s objection to being tried in prison garb in denying the motion for a continuance.... - Even if the jury had been sworn and a motion for mistrial could have been brought, to require Box to move for a mistrial after the trial court had ruled on his objection and motion for a continuance would be to require a vain and useless act. Logan v. State, 299 Ark. 266 , 773 S.W.2d 413 (1989). The law does not require vain and useless acts.... It is clear the prejudice at issue here attaches from the potential jurors seeing Box.... The jurors saw Box when he was brought up before the pretrial proceedings began. The proper method to raise the issue was to bring the matter to the court’s attention, as was done, and to seek a continuance. The trial had not commenced. The jury had not been sworn.... The solution was simply to bring in a fresh jury panel once Box was in civilian clothing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stover v. State

3. “In Miller [v. State, 249 Ark. 3 , 457 S.W.2d 848 (1970) ], we adopted the rule then held by the majority of States that “absent a waiver accused should not be forced to trial in prison garb.” Miller, 249 Ark. at 5 , 457 S.W.2d 848 .... Six years later, the United States Supreme Court noted this court’s opinion in Miller with approval and adopted a somewhat similar rule in Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 , 96 S.Ct. 1691 , 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976). The holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Estelle was that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a defendant’s constitutional rights were violated when he was compelled to wear identifiable prison clothing.... The rule in Arkansas remains that the accused may not be forced to trial in prison garb absent a waiver.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stover v. State