If you have the misfortune to be either a Plaintiff or Defendant in a civil or criminal trial, it is important to spend a few minutes planning your attire. You are already investing a good deal of time and money into these proceedings and now is not the time to disregard such a simple yet important part of your presentation. How the judge or jury perceives you is one of the many factors that will influence a final decision. We can argue all day about whether as a society we should form opinions about people based upon appearance, but that’s not going to change the fact that we do.

Chris Brown facing charges of felony assault in 2009. Chris dressed and acted conservatively in court. 

With that in mind, lets talk about what you should wear to court.

1. Whether you find yourself in Miami, Florida or Portland, Maine, the courtroom is a formal setting with conservative standards. You will need to dress yourself accordingly.

2. For men, a dark suit, white shirt and tie is best. If you don’t own a suit, slacks, a white shirt and a tie will do just fine. But remember the key word here is conservative. I was recently involved in a criminal trial where the defendant was wearing a very expensive grey suit with a loud orange tie. He pretty much looked like an organized crime boss from South Beach and I can guarantee that the judge and jury took notice of it. 

3. For women, wear a dark suit, dress or blouse. Avoid spike heels or open toed shoes. If you are wearing a dress, pantyhose are strongly recommended. Wearing a bra is strongly advised, as well.

4. Comfort is important here, too. I know that many of us don’t wear suits everyday and it can be a little awkward putting one on. It’s important that you look comfortable and at ease while in court. I would suggest wearing it around for a couple of hours prior to trial to make sure you’re comfortable wearing it around.

5. To reiterate the importance of dressing conservatively, lets talk about a few things NOT to wear: (a) lots of jewelry, (b) strong perfume or cologne, (c) revealing clothing, (d) loud colors, and (e) conspicuous hairstyles. These may some obvious to some and less obvious to others, but these are all things that you should not wear in court. They are distracting and will give the impression that you don’t respect the proceedings.

In a nut shell, you don’t want to call any extra attention to your outfit either because of how nice/expensive it looks or because of how informal it looks. You are in court to make a good impression and while a couple of the jurors might appreciate your taste in diamond-studded Louis Vuitton handbags, it probably won’t help persuade the judge and jury to find in your favor. In fact, if you are a victim seeking money damages, showing off your wealth is not going to help your cause. Likewise, if you are being charged with a  crime, dressing informally or in a trendy fashion, will give the impression that you’re not taking the proceedings seriously.

Coming up next... How to Dress for Court: The Jury 

Jurors often yearn for something concrete: a picture, a shoe-print or even a bloody glove, to link up with the witness' account and the lawyer's arguments.

My last trial featured many high priced real estate experts pontificating on the value of ground floor commercial retail space in a condominium high rise building (exciting, I know!). The experts' valuations, data, and opinions were completely overshadowed by a simple blown up photograph displaying the location of the building in question. All the jury needed was a simple and clear message. Our photograph demonstrated that the building was in a prime location in town and thus commanded a high per square foot price.

Our photograph exhibit was a great success, but our trial team never could have utilized it unless it was properly introduced into evidence at trial.

The introduction of exhibits can be tricky for beginners. Master the language and techniques described below and you will soon be on your way to more effective advocacy.

Introduction of Real Evidence:

Real objects, such as a knife used in a murder or drugs seized by the police, can be introduced into evidence only if certain legal steps are followed.

1) Identification of the Exhibit:  The authenticity of real evidence can be established through the testimony of a witness who is able to identify the object in question.  Your witness must testify that he/she is familiar with the object from a previous encounter, and also that he/she is able to identify the object in court as that same object from the past.

Example:

Attorney: Do you recognize Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10?

Witness: Yes, it is my brother’s hunting knife.

Attorney: How do you know it’s your brother’s hunting knife?

Witness: Because he engraved his initials on the bottom of the handle.

Attorney: Is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10 in the same condition or substantially similar condition as the last time you viewed it?

Witness: Yes it is, except for the small blood spots on the blade.

2) Chain of Custody:  When the possibility of evidence tampering is at issue, the attorney must establish a proper chain of custody through one or more witnesses. The attorney must establish, via specific testimony, that the exhibit from the incident is the same unaltered exhibit being offered as evidence. Establishing a chain of custody of real objects from a criminal case often involves testimony from police officers and/or crime scene technicians.

Example:

Attorney: Is this knife, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10, the same knife you found at the crime scene on Oak Street on June 22, 2009?

Witness: Yes it is.

Attorney: What did you do with the knife after you found it at the crime scene?

Witness: I sealed it in the official evidence bag and added my police label with my initials and the date.

Attorney: What did you do with the knife after that?

Witness: I brought it to the crime lab and locked it in the evidence deposit box.

Attorney: Were there any other knives in the evidence deposit box?

Witness: No.

Attorney: Did the knife, Plaintiff’s exhibit 10, ever leave your evidence deposit box after your place it there?

Witness: Yes, only today when I brought it with me to court.

These questions from the attorney are an example of how to establish the chain of custody of an exhibit for evidence. The witness is able to establish, via direct testimony, the whereabouts of the knife from the crime scene until the knife appears in the courtroom. This ensures the knife introduced into evidence is the same knife from the crime scene and that it has not been altered. 

If the knife had been given to a scientist at a laboratory for testing, then a more complicated chain of custody would be required. The attorney would have to direct each witness to testify regarding their possession of the object and track the history of its movements to account for the complete chain of custody.

Remember, establishing recognition and chain of custody are not a guarantee the judge in your case will allow you to introduce it into evidence. Federal Rules of Evidence (or state rules depending on your jurisdiction and/or applicable mock trial rules) pertaining to relevancy and prejudicial nature of the object may prevent the judge from allowing the object into evidence, but that’s another blog entry for later! But these techniques are a necessary component in your advocacy education.