Robert Lee Henderson v. State of Florida
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3297
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Robert Lee Henderson was tried for armed robbery and chose to wear his county jail jumpsuit at trial despite counsel’s repeated advice to wear civilian clothes.
- Defense counsel provided laundered civilian clothing; Henderson rejected it and insisted on jail clothing he had been wearing at arrest.
- At the start of trial the court allowed Henderson to wear the jail uniform but also required he be physically shackled in the courtroom; defense counsel sought removal of the shackles.
- The trial court treated the jumpsuit and shackles as a “package deal” and did not make an on-the-record necessity finding for shackling.
- The jury was admonished not to consider Henderson’s clothing as evidence; post-verdict questioning indicated jurors believed appearance did not affect their verdict.
- Appellate court held the trial court erred by not making a necessity finding for shackling but deemed the error harmless given the record and sufficient evidence supporting the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may require physical shackles without on-the-record necessity findings | State: restraints were permissible as part of courtroom security (implicit) | Henderson: shackling was imposed without necessity finding and is inherently prejudicial | Error to decline to make necessity finding for shackles, but error was harmless on these facts |
| Whether wearing jail clothing compels an adverse presumption | State: jury instructions prevent inference from clothing | Henderson: voluntary choice to wear jail garb can be legitimate tactic to elicit sympathy | Defendant may choose to wear jail clothing; court warned jurors not to consider clothing as evidence |
| Whether shackles plus jail clothing produced reversible prejudice | State: any prejudice was minimal and mitigated by jury instruction and unclear visibility of shackles | Henderson: shackles are inherently prejudicial and imply dangerousness to jurors | Additional prejudice from shackles could not be shown on the record; harmless error given circumstances |
| Whether trial court’s admonitions cured any potential prejudice | State: judge’s instruction and post-verdict juror inquiry showed no impact | Henderson: instruction did not substitute for required findings on shackling | Admonitions helped; combined with record, no miscarriage of justice found |
Key Cases Cited
- Bello v. State, 547 So. 2d 914 (recognizing shackling as inherently prejudicial and requiring some showing of necessity)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (shackling is inherently prejudicial practice)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (defendant cannot be compelled to stand trial in jail clothes; wearing jail clothes may be a defense tactic)
- Demurjian v. State, 727 So. 2d 324 (defense tactic of using prison garb to elicit sympathy is recognized)
- Miller v. State, 852 So. 2d 904 (trial judge should initiate inquiry into restraints even without objection)
- Carlisle v. State, 105 So. 3d 625 (requiring shackles can be error but may be harmless depending on record)