Connecticut Supreme Court Invokes Supervisory Authority Reversing Conviction

Calling the harm resultant of requiring a prisoner to wear a prison jumpsuit at jury trial an “unambiguous and indefensive” constitutional violation, the Supreme Court of Connecticut applied its supervisory authority in affirming, in July 2012, the state appeals court’s reversal of defendant Irvin D. Rose’s assault case. Rose was housed on January 15, 2006 in an isolation cell at Bridgeport Correctional Center as a pretrial detainee in lieu of posing bond for a larceny charge. Rose had removed the stuffing from his mattress and crawled inside the mattress cover. Rose spit on the guard who was removing the mattress parts, resulting in a charge of assault of public safety personnel. He was subsequently found guilty at jury trail and sentenced to ten years in prison, with four years suspended.

Rose appealed the conviction, claiming, among other things, that the trial court had improperly compelled him to wear prison clothing in violation of his constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. The appellate court reversed the conviction on that issue. Rose asserted that he had protested on the record being made to wear “this bozo the clown suit” at trial and that the court replied “based on the nature of your charge the jury is going to know you are incarcerated, anyway.” The appellate court reasoned that it was “inappropriate to apply harmless error analysis in cases such as this [one, which] the defendant clearly [had] objected at trial and the [trial] court [made] no findings with respect to an essential state policy.” The potential for prejudice to the defendant was too great. The state appealed.

The Connecticut Supreme Court “affirm[ed] the judgment of the Appellate Court on the alterative ground that reversing the defendant’s conviction is warranted in the exercise of this court’s inherent supervisory authority over the administration of justice.” The court established the rule that per se reversibility will “put trial courts on notice that compelling a defendant to stand trial in identifiable prison clothing simply cannot be sanctioned,” and second to send the message that this Court hold the presumption of innocence and basic fairness to the highest importance. See: State v. Rose, 305 Conn. 594 (Conn. 2012).

Related legal case