At one time, Marni Yang was an attractive woman.  She’s been in jail since 2009 awaiting trial for the murder of ex-Bear Shaun Gayle long-time girlfriend, Rhoni Reuter.  She’s not looking very good these days.  Jail can do that to a woman.

Yang is looking at a tough trial.

Yang allegedly shot Reuter at least six times — and intentionally fired two bullets into her abdomen in an attempt to kill her unborn child, prosecutors have contended. Stride agreed to allow jurors to see an autopsy photo showing the infant had been hit twice by bullets.

The impact of seeing an autopsy photo of the bullet-ridden fetus can’t be understated.  It will be a horrible and outrageous image, one that may (and should) cause revulsion in every juror’s mind.  And as with all things more prejudicial than probative, it will cause jurors to feel compelled to blame someone for the horror.  That’s the only reason to introduce such a horrific image at trial.

But the anger and outrage bears no connection to who shot the gun, and that remains the fight for Yang.  Among the many issues she faces is her appearance.

“Her appearance has declined,” said Hedrick. “She looks like a crazy woman. She does not look like anybody who Shaun Gayle would ever have a second of interest in.”

In an effort to return his client to the status quo ante, William Hedrick moved the court to allow the defendant to wear make-up and have her hair, now gray and wild, cut and died.

Stride also again denied requests that the 43-year-old Yang, who has been jailed since her March 2009 arrest, be allowed to wear makeup during the trial and have her long, graying hair cut and dyed. Her attorneys have contended that her appearance otherwise makes her look “like a crazy woman.”

Like it or not, appearance matters.  It matters a lot.  It matters in every case, but it’s particularly critical in this case where the defense is founded upon the defendant’s claimed involvement in a sexual relationship with Gayle.  Not only does she look like “a crazy woman,” but she most assuredly doesn’t look like a woman with whom Gayle would be having sex.

It’s not that the defense is seeking to turn Yang into someone she isn’t, and never was, but return her to the physical appearance she had at the time the murder happened.  This has nothing to do with vanity, and isn’t really linked directly to giving the jury the misimpression that “she looks guilty.”  This goes to the heart of her defense, and the judge’s denial of the application deprives her of her right to present a defense.

Here’s an image of what Yang looked like in her pre-jail days.  Whether her come-hither look is the sort of thing that turns you on isn’t the point.  The point is that she didn’t look like a prison crazy woman.

Here’s her mugshot.



Not quite as nice.  I haven’t found any picture of her recently, but I imagine it’s likely to look a lot worse than even the mug shot.

But that’s not the woman who Gayle allegedly had the hots for, and it shouldn’t be the woman the jury sees sitting at the table attempting to make her defense.

Judge Christopher Stride’s denial of the defense application, to allow an incarcerated defendant the opportunity to address her appearance such that jail, and not conduct, undermines her defense isn’t a laughing matter.  The application isn’t a plea for vanity, but the constitutional right to present a defense unaffected by extraneous and improper forces.  His denial is wrong.

And it’s not the only wrong thing about this story.  This came to me via Above the Law’s Morning Docket, a round-up of the more salacious legal news of the day.  Written by some anonymous twinkie straining to find humor in things beyond her grasp, this was the snippet:

A judge in Illinois won’t let a defendant who looks like the Crazy Cat Lady from the Simpsons get her hair done or wear makeup at trial. [Chicago Sun-Times]

How nice that some bimbo baby lawyer saw an opportunity in this murder case, where a defendant will be subject to untenable prejudice at every turn, to make reference to the Simpsons crazy cat lady.  Let’s all enjoy a good laugh at a severely prejudiced defendant’s expense.