As battles break out in backwaters over the proper attire for court, lawyers in the Big Apple felt confident that they could hold their head high, knowing that their judges, for all their other faults, perceived or real, were above such petty concerns. While this remains true in the land of fashion week, our heads hang in shame for the province to the north.
From the Daily News :
Bronx Judge Joseph Dawson has had enough of the skimpy, casual attire worn by defendants in his courtroom – and Monday he decided to let everyone know it.
“Your client comes up in a T-shirt and sweatpants, chewing gum?” Dawson chided lawyer Edward McGowan. “This court deserves more respect than that.”
Dawson admonished another man sporting a T-shirt and shorts: “I’m not saying you have to wear a suit. You don’t. Just wear something appropriate.”
Finally, a judge bold enough to state the obvious. Dress for probation. How many defendants have suffered the Rock just to put them in a slimming jumpsuit in place of those hot pants or, God forbid, the Frankie Say Relax t-shirt.
It used to be that the mere fact that a defendant showed up for court was enough respect to sate the appetite of a judge. They were so easily pacified across the river. Isn’t it time that defendants came to appreciate that court wasn’t a place to model the latest in Juicy Couture? Granted many defendants would sweat standing before a stern-faced titan of the law, but that doesn’t mean he should wear special enabling pants for the occasion.
Though Edward McGowan does note a problem with the edict:
It used to be that the mere fact that a defendant showed up for court was enough respect to sate the appetite of a judge. They were so easily pacified across the river. Isn’t it time that defendants came to appreciate that court wasn’t a place to model the latest in Juicy Couture? Granted many defendants would sweat standing before a stern-faced titan of the law, but that doesn’t mean he should wear special enabling pants for the occasion.
Though Edward McGowan does note a problem with the edict:
McGowan, a lawyer with the nonprofit Bronx Defenders, said while the judge’s position is reasonable, sometimes “the clothes they got [are] the clothes they got.”If you’ve ever taken a leisurely stroll down the Grand Concourse, you will note that there is neither a Gap nor Banana Republic to be found. Rather, the haberdasheries offer a style of clothing that is appealing to local tastes, at a price point matching the fiscal sensibilities of the natives. Very few people in the Bronx have a preppie wardrobe hiding in the back of their closet. It’s just not the way they roll.
“All of our clients are poor,” he said. “What may be the best clothes they have might be considered by others to be disrespectful to the court.”
I learned this from my own experience, advising (well, actually demanding) that my clients dress in accordance with my own refined sense of propriety and fashion-backward thinking, anticipating that attire more appealing to the tastes of the judge would remove a nasty distraction. I explained to my clients that court was not a place to meet new friends of the opposite sex, and it therefore would not harm their status on the street to dress in manner befitting a court appearance.
Of course, after acquittal, they would rip off the Oxford button down shirt in the hallway, revealing the “Vote For Pedro” tee underneath. Freedom is sweet.
During my decades as arbitrator in Manhattan small claims court, I was once confronted by a litigant who sat before me with his shirt open from collar to waist, revealing a hairless chest and the same musculature I possess, though mine is covered by the requisite layor of human protective material. It was, to be blunt, disturbing. I asked him why his shirt was fully open, and he told me it was “a look.”
Judge Dawson’s expectation that defendants consider the fact that they are going to court when they select their attire in the morning hardly strikes me as much of a stretch. Even in the Bronx, consideration of the day’s events should guide one’s choices. However, when one’s Sunday Best on the Concourse is either the best they can do, or a casual reflection of a cultural distinction, perhaps it would be wise to spend less time concerned with the questionable merit of halter tops or droopy pantaloons and appreciate the fact that the defendants have appeared as required by law, turned off their cellphones so as to avoid disruption and kept their hands to their sides.
Yes, the Bronx is where court-friendly fashion goes to die. But if that’s the only thing that dies in the Bronx, we’re way ahead of the game. No disrespect intended.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Proper attire for the defendant in court radiating an image of decency, solidity and respect, mixed personal record notwithstanding? Absolutely, a no-brainer.
But I’m willing to bet that the same demanding judges have no problem with defendants appearing before them dressed in jump orange, shackled every which way, two burly deputies in tow, screaming an image of: Here comes the extremely dangerous perp, watch out, don’t let him out any time soon.
You might be surprised to learn that very few people look good in orange. It really is a difficult color to wear well.
Perhaps if some of NYC’s courthouses were spruced up a bit, defendants might sense more of the majesty of the place and dress to impress.
It’s depressing. Most criminals grow up in a culture where no one “knows better.” It’s not hard to see how things go so wrong in their lives. As children, they didn’t have someone (or someone strong willed enough) to guide them. And, thus, the wind up in criminal court.
That judges are not empathetic to this is indicative of the status privilege most judges were born with, and thus take for granted. How would most of those judges have ended up had they grown up in a home where there was no one around to explain why you shouldn’t wear FuBu to court?
Most judges in the Bronx are empathetic, or at least tolerant, in this regard. You ought to see how people show up for court, and I know of very few who saw defendant’s attire (or other “issues”, like tattoos, or t-shirt messages, or haircuts) as anything other than a clash of culture, and having no significance as to respect or propriety.
But you are absolutely right that there is no one to guide many of these defendants, a concept that is foreign to privileged judges.
I hate it when you tell them to leave all the jewelry at home and they think you mean to leave off half of it.
But it’s just a little bling. With the askew baseball cap.
Jewelry on men – it’s just wrong. I might wear a ring and a “power necklace” to court (but often don’t because of all the damn metal detectors) but am not a big jewelry fan. I’d rather see a crisp white or blue shirt do the talking if a guy needs to announce his masculinity.
…wise Latina judge would certainly be more empathetic to the influence that the finances, culture and [hip-hop]sub-culture of the defendants plays on their choice of wardrobe for court. Which is good and desirable. We need empathetic judges most will agree. But, for the defendants’ own sakes, appearing in various states of inappropriateness will not help their case. They should never appear dripping in gold when declaring themselves indigent and asking the court for a Public Defender. Showing several inches of ones derriere to the judge, court officials, deputies and other friends of the court is no way to get sympathy for ones case. Flashing the cleavage of the mammalian glands might be misinterpreted as an attempt to distract and disturb the decision-making processes of the jurist.
If a defendant can understand the value of having family members show up to demonstrate support for the defendant, then considering some of the logical presumptions suggested by certain modes of dress might help some defendants understand what is and is not appropriate for a court appearance.
Hey SHG: Just as an aside, you will notice that all of the prison-striped inmates in the historical photograph in your masthead each have their matching striped hats dutifully in hand. Also, their uniforms consist not of jumpsuits but of trousers and matching horizontally-striped jackets with cardigans, vests or waistcoats layered beneath! Gentlemen convicts, indeed!
Like all historical photographs, this one is an irrefutable document as to how the penal system (at least in that time and place) treated, dressed and viewed penitents. Obviously the policy motive was to preserve or convey some modicum of dignity to the men.
The same can certainly not be said of penal systems today. (I wonder what year the photo was taken? In fact, I wonder if the inmates are in the U.S. at all. The fact that they are all Caucasian may reflect that it is a photo of a prison NOT in this country since the history of U.S. prisons has always reflected a disproportionate number of African-Americans – at least since the 1860s and the invention of modern photography. [Daguerreotypes were too expensive to have been used to take pics of prisoners, I’m sure.] Any light on that? Do you remember the source for the pic?)
And, as already observed, maybe if courts showed more ‘respect’ towards defendants and made the kind of official effort to ‘preserve and convey a sense of dignity’ to those caught-up in the juidical system, the defendants would learn to show that they are interested in preserving the dignity of the court….It could happen!