Michigan Appeals Court: Witnesses Cannot be Forced to Wear Jail Clothes at Trial
by David Reutter
On April 16, 2026, the Michigan Court of Appeals found a trial court abused its discretion by ordering that a prosecution witness appear before a jury wearing jail clothes. The Court concluded that the principle of creditability fairness that applies to a defendant also applies to witnesses.
Henry Travis Wills III was charged in November 2024 with seven crimes. Former Flint police officer Joshua McKinley responded to a domestic violence call involving Wills. In addition to the domestic violence charge, Wills was charged with crimes relating to an assault upon McKinley. While the case against Wills was pending, McKinley was arrested and charged with crimes unrelated to his job as a police officer.
After Wills learned that prosecutors intended to call McKinley as a witness and have him appear in civilian clothes, Wills filed a motion requesting the trial court order McKinley to appear at trial in jail garb. The prosecution, likewise, filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning the charges pending against McKinley. The trial court, after conclusion of a November 3, 2025, hearing, granted both motions. The prosecution filed an emergency interlocutory appeal. The trial court stayed the proceedings and granted leave to appeal.
In March 2026, the prosecution filed a motion informing the appeals court that McKinley was released from jail, but argued the appeal was not moot because it planned to call another jailed witness. The Court of Appeals agreed the appeal was not moot based upon the situation and because the issue presented was one of great public importance and one that was likely to escape judicial review.
In analyzing the issue of whether a non-defendant could be required to appear at a trial dressed in jail clothes, the Court of Appeals recognized that courts have inherent authority to control their courtrooms, including the order and manner in which witnesses testify. Yet, that authority is not without limitations.
A defendant is generally “entitled to wear civilian clothes rather than prison clothes at his trial.” See: People v. Shaw, 164 NW 2d 7 (1969). That principle is rooted in the presumption of innocence and took root because “the constant reminder of the accused’s condition implicit in such distinctive, identifiable [jail] attire may affect a juror’s judgment.” See: Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976).
In comparison, a nondefendant’s appearance does not implicate constitutional concerns. The Court of Appeals, however, noted that being dressed in jail clothes may impact the witness’ creditability and may undermine the fairness of the trial. The Court found that “[t]he overwhelming majority of jurisdictions hold that an incarcerated witness should not be compelled to testify in prison clothing.” See: Hightower v. State, 158 P.3d 639 (2007), 21A Amer. Jurd. 2d, Criminal Law Section 922.
The Court noted that not forcing witnesses to testify in jail garb is consistent with the general principle that charges pending against a witness cannot be used to attack creditability. Moreover, only convictions involving moral turpitude or theft can be used to impeach a witness. See: MRE 609(a). Forcing a witness to appear in jail clothes “injects irrelevant information that undermines creditability and taints the fact-finding process.” Where a jury is otherwise made aware a witness has a conviction or is in jail or prison, prejudice may be reduced. The amount of prejudice that inures may be dependent upon the role the witness’ testimony plays at trial.
The trial court’s order was highly dependent upon “its perception of historical practice” in its circuit and “because witnesses are not entitled to the presumption of innocence.” No findings were made as to security concerns or other sound reasons that necessitated McKinley to testify in jail clothes.
The Appellate Court pointed out that although the trial court excluded evidence concerning the charges pending against McKinley, forcing him “to appear in jail clothes could undermine his creditability by alerting the jury that he is in jail, suggesting either pending charges or a criminal conviction.” An issue in the trial is the “lawfulness of McKinley’s actions as a police officer,” and requiring him to appear in jail clothes “could lead the jury to believe McKinley is not someone who acts lawfully.”
Wills was free to attack McKinley’s creditability at trial, but “the fairness of the trial should not be undermined ‘by destroying the creditability of the witness before the witness gets the opportunity to testify.’”
Therefore, the trial court’s order requiring McKinley to wear jail clothes while testifying was vacated and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. See: People v. Wills, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 3229.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login