Scott-meister, you should quit trying to move the emotion and purpose of the thread. There's nothing funny about wearing shirts depicting guilty conduct. Except maybe wearing them inside out, which would change the whole theme of the shirt. Maybe that could be her attorney's argument, come to think of it.

How about the general exception of "it's just too damn funny not to admit" ??

The proper defense objection might be: "Rule 403 prohibits admission, your honor."

From Greene, 878 S.W.2d at 387 (Ark. 1994):

At trial, appellant did not object to any of officer Taylor's testimony, but did object to the admission of the black tee-shirt. The tee-shirt bears the following message: "If you love someone, set them free. If they don't come back, hunt them down and shoot them." Appellant objected to the admission of the tee-shirt on the grounds that it was not relevant to the murder and was unduly prejudicial.

There was no proof about how, when, or where appellant came into possession of the shirt. No proof indicated that he possessed it at the time of the murder. The proof was solely that he had it in his hand on July 26th, three days after the murder. There was no evidence that appellant had at any time loved the victim, or had set the victim free in any way, and there was no proof that appellant subscribed to the statement emblazoned on the shirt. In offering the shirt, the State contended that it was relevant to prove appellant's state of mind at the time of the murder. The trial court questioned the relevancy because of the lapse of time, but ultimately overruled appellant's objection. The prosecuting attorney argued extensively about the shirt in closing argument.

In a comparable case, an Illinois appellate court ruled that it was error to admit a photograph of a defendant wearing a shirt with "Enjoy Cocaine" printed on it when the prosecution introduced the shirt to prove the defendant was a drug dealer. The court stated that even assuming such evidence was relevant, "The prejudicial effect of the challenged evidence far outweighed whatever probative value, if any, that such evidence may have had." People v. Kannapes, 208 Ill. App. 3d 400, 567 N.E.2d 377, 380, 153 Ill. Dec. 419 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990).

I realize the defendant was not wearing the shirt at the time of arrest in either of these cases, but they do advise caution. Greene resulted in a reversal of the sentence in a death case.

As a condition of court supervision, defendant was ordered to attend a program called the "victim impact panel" (VIP) held at the Kane County Judicial Center. Defendant arrived at the program wearing a T-shirt displaying the slogan, "I can't be drunk � I'm still drinking!" Defendant was asked twice to turn the shirt inside out so as to conceal the slogan. When he refused to do so, the supervisor of court services ordered defendant to leave the program. The State's petition to revoke defendant's court supervision alleged that defendant "failed to comply with Rule of VIP [and] did not complete VIP as ordered by this Court." As noted, the trial court granted the petition. This appeal followed.

How do you think it came out?

Seems like it would make wonderful punishment evidence rather along the lines of certain tattoos--see, e.g. Woodward v. State, 170 S.W.3d 726 (Tex. App.-Waco, 2005) ("WHITE PRIDE" tattoo relevant to character, more prob. than prej. in racially motivated shooting).

Elizabeth Foley
Ass't Crim. D.A.
Galveston County

[This message was edited by AlexLayman on 08-16-07 at .]