Cavitt, Raymond Lee, PD-0605-15

Appellant Raymond Lee Cavitt was convicted of sexual assault of a child; jury assessed life following a true enhancement finding. Trial occurred Sept–Oct 2013; conviction affirmed by the First Court of Appeals.
The alleged victim (R.R.) testified she woke to Cavitt on top of her after ingesting drugs; defense theory emphasized inconsistent statements and a later recantation.
D.R., a material defense witness who lived with Cavitt and was present the night of the alleged offense, was produced to testify after being detained on a witness warrant; she appeared before the jury in handcuffs and a brown jumpsuit. Defense counsel asked the court to remove restraints; the court did so on the record.
Cavitt raised multiple issues on appeal and in a motion for new trial, including that presenting D.R. shackled and in jail attire prejudiced his right to a fair trial; the First Court of Appeals treated any error as harmless.
On appeal the court reviewed speedy‑trial, motion‑for‑new‑trial hearing, newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance claims, and the claim about the handcuffed/jumpsuit witness; it affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Witness in handcuffs/jail uniform	Bringing D.R. before jury handcuffed/in jumpsuit prejudiced D.R.'s credibility and Cavitt's presumption of innocence	Court never ordered attire; D.R. was detained for ignoring subpoenas and lack of ride; handcuffs removed on record; testimony undermined her credibility in other ways	Any error was harmless; conviction affirmed (followed Groh harmless‑error approach)
Speedy trial	Delay (~18 months) violated Sixth Amendment	Appellant did not timely assert right; many resets were at defendant's request; no demonstrated prejudice	No violation: Barker factors weighed against Cavitt
Motion for new trial hearing	Appellant sought live evidentiary hearing on his affidavits	Trial court admitted affidavits and heard argument; live testimony not required	No abuse of discretion: hearing on pleadings/affidavits was sufficient
Newly discovered evidence	Post‑trial hearsay that a witness (Dee) wanted to change her statement justifies new trial	No affidavit from proffered witness; counsel knew similar information pretrial; impeachment evidence would be inadmissible or cumulative	No new trial: requirements for newly discovered evidence not met

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (requiring a defendant not be compelled to stand trial in prison clothing because it may erode presumption of innocence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (factors for admitting prior convictions for impeachment under Rule 609)
Simpson v. State, 447 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (analyzing when courtroom practices are inherently prejudicial and may erode presumption of innocence)
Groh v. State, 725 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986) (applying harmless‑error review where a witness appeared in jail clothing)