Wilkins v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 2

Defendant Robert Allen Wilkins was tried by jury in Portsmouth for petit larceny (third or subsequent offense) and convicted; sentenced to five years.
At trial Wilkins appeared in what defense counsel described as green, scrub‑style jail clothing, black sneakers, and a visible bracelet; counsel objected to him wearing jail clothes.
The trial judge recessed to allow counsel to seek street clothes from the public defender’s office, then overruled the renewed objection and permitted trial to proceed with Wilkins in the described attire.
The trial record lacks voir dire, closing arguments, photographs of the clothing, or any jury instruction about appearance; the judge commented on the record about the defendant’s conduct and failure to produce street clothes.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed; this Court granted review on whether the trial court erred by allowing Wilkins to be tried in jail clothing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant must prove clothing was "readily identifiable" as jail attire to show an Estelle violation	Commonwealth: burden on defendant to show clothing was identifiable as jail issue	Wilkins: trial in jail clothing violated Fourteenth Amendment unless justified	Held for Commonwealth: defendant bears burden to prove clothing was readily identifiable as jail garb
Whether the record here shows clothing was readily identifiable as jail attire	Commonwealth: record description insufficient to show identifiable jail clothing	Wilkins: his counsel’s description was enough to show jail attire	Held: description (green scrub‑like outfit, sneakers, bracelet) was insufficient; no markings or photos showing jail issue
Whether the court needed to determine compulsion or bad faith if identifiability not shown	Commonwealth: unnecessary if defendant fails identifiability burden	Wilkins: compulsion or court fault should be reviewed regardless	Held: because identifiability burden not met, court did not reach compulsion or bad‑faith issues
Proper allocation of proof under Estelle v. Williams	Commonwealth: various federal and state precedents support placing burden on defendant	Wilkins: (implicitly) burden should be on prosecution to justify attire	Held: Court adopts defendant‑burden rule consistent with Estelle and cited authorities

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (states may not compel an accused to stand trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable prison clothes)
Jackson v. Washington, 270 Va. 269 (recognizing that being compelled to appear in clearly identifiable jail clothes can violate presumption of innocence; defendant must object)
United States v. Henry, 47 F.3d 17 (2d Cir.) (appellate deference to lower court finding that denim was not readily identifiable as prison issue)
United States v. Rogers, 769 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir.) (defendant seeking reversal must show record that a juror would recognize clothing as prison issued)