It has long been the law in this state that a trial judge should not allow either a defendant or his/her witnesses to appear at trial in prison garb or in restraints.  That is so because the appearance of a defendant or his witness in prison clothes or restraints can produce a real and present danger of unfair prejudice.  In those instances where the government insists on producing a defendant or a defense witness in restraints, it is the responsibility of the trial court to determine whether those restraints are necessary in order to keep the courtroom secure.  If the decision is made to require the defendant or witness to testify in restraints, the court must give a jury instruction “in the clearest terms that they should give such restraint no consideration whatsoever in assessing the proofs and determining guilt.”

This year, the New Jersey Supreme Court applied this principle to the government’s witness.  In that case, the defendant objected to a government’s witness testifying in shackles and in prison garb.  Although the government argued that the witnesses’ appearance in prison garb and shackles assisted the principal defense theme in the defendant’s case, the Supreme Court rejected the argument and concluded that there is no reason to differentiate between the prejudice caused by the presence of shackles on a defense witness and that of  a prosecution witness.  Although this case only related to restraints, the court cautioned, however, that a full-blown evidential hearing was not necessary and, that in order to determine whether the court room was secure, an informal hearing would suffice.