Estelle v. Williams
Encyclopedia
Estelle v. Williams 425 U.S. 501 , is a trial which involved the accused Harry Lee Williams murdering his former landlord in Harris County, Texas
. While awaiting trial Williams was unable to post bail. Because he was unable to post bail he was tried in his prison uniform, and later was found guilty. He sought a writ of habeas corpus saying it violated his Constitutional rights in accordance with the 14th amendment. The Court of Appeals ruled that the accused does not have to withstand trial in identifiable prison cloths and Williams’ right to due process was violated. His rehearing was denied by the Supreme Court
on June 21, 1976.
of the Constitution
states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. The argument made by Williams was that wearing clearly identifiable prison clothes had given a perception of guilt and therefore undermines his right to innocence until proven guilty under due process. The violation of his amendment rights would allow him to appeal for a mistrial if upheld in the Court.
In Hernandez v. Beto (1971), the accused Hernandez appealed to the court for being tried in prison clothes. Hernandez had not made a request to be tried in his civilian clothes and therefore the prosecutor maintains that if there was an error made it was harmless. The District Court referenced Brooks v. Texas (1967) and set the precedent that it is implicitly wrong to try a defendant in prison attire especially when civilian clothing is at hand. The appearance of the prison uniform should not be able to affect the jurors’ decision making, which should solely be left to be judged on the hard evidence alone. The judge at Hernandez’s trial referenced the decision in Brooks v. Texas and agreed that the situation is applicable to the case at hand. The Court of Appeals however found that since no objection was made by the defendant to wearing prison clothes then his appeal for retrial was denied.
In Turner v. Louisiana (1965) the appeal allowed the defendant, Turner, to have the decision reversed and remanded. During Turner’s three day trial for murder, the two deputy sheriffs who had custody of the jury and closely interacted with them during this time were the two main witnesses in his case. The appeal on a writ of habeas corpus was upheld on the basis that Turner’s fourteenth amendment rights were violated because of his right to an impartial jury under due process.
Harris County, Texas
As of the 2010 Census, the population of the county was 4,092,459, White Americans made up 56.6% of Harris County's population; non-Hispanic whites represented 33.0% of the population. Black Americans made up 18.9% of the population. Native Americans made up 0.7% of Harris County's population...
. While awaiting trial Williams was unable to post bail. Because he was unable to post bail he was tried in his prison uniform, and later was found guilty. He sought a writ of habeas corpus saying it violated his Constitutional rights in accordance with the 14th amendment. The Court of Appeals ruled that the accused does not have to withstand trial in identifiable prison cloths and Williams’ right to due process was violated. His rehearing was denied by the Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
on June 21, 1976.
Background
Section one of the Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
of the Constitution
Constitution
A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is...
states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. The argument made by Williams was that wearing clearly identifiable prison clothes had given a perception of guilt and therefore undermines his right to innocence until proven guilty under due process. The violation of his amendment rights would allow him to appeal for a mistrial if upheld in the Court.
Historical context
In the case of Chapman v. California (1967) the court ruled that some mistakes and errors could be made that do not require rectification. The defendants in the case invoked the 5th amendment and chose not to testify. They were eventually were found guilty, but appealed on the basis that their silence created negative publicity which skewed the views of the jurors and undermined their trial. The court agreed that negative media hype was high, but concluded that this occurrence had no effect on the outcome of the trial, and therefore did not require any modification. However, the court went on to say each case is particular and the stances should be viewed individually. The error would have to be found insignificant to the overall outcome of the trial in order to not be overturned. The court must find the error to be harmless without a doubt in order for the verdict to be considered final. If the appeal happens to be upheld, the defendant can be awarded a retrial.In Hernandez v. Beto (1971), the accused Hernandez appealed to the court for being tried in prison clothes. Hernandez had not made a request to be tried in his civilian clothes and therefore the prosecutor maintains that if there was an error made it was harmless. The District Court referenced Brooks v. Texas (1967) and set the precedent that it is implicitly wrong to try a defendant in prison attire especially when civilian clothing is at hand. The appearance of the prison uniform should not be able to affect the jurors’ decision making, which should solely be left to be judged on the hard evidence alone. The judge at Hernandez’s trial referenced the decision in Brooks v. Texas and agreed that the situation is applicable to the case at hand. The Court of Appeals however found that since no objection was made by the defendant to wearing prison clothes then his appeal for retrial was denied.
In Turner v. Louisiana (1965) the appeal allowed the defendant, Turner, to have the decision reversed and remanded. During Turner’s three day trial for murder, the two deputy sheriffs who had custody of the jury and closely interacted with them during this time were the two main witnesses in his case. The appeal on a writ of habeas corpus was upheld on the basis that Turner’s fourteenth amendment rights were violated because of his right to an impartial jury under due process.