The Court of Appeals ruled that the accused does not have to stand trial in identifiable prison clothes and Williams’ right to due process was violated.

[1] Williams argued that being tried in clearly identifiable prison clothes gave a perception of guilt and therefore undermined his due process right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

They were eventually 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 attention was severe, but concluded that this occurrence had no effect on the outcome of the trial, and therefore did not require any modification.

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 judge at Hernandez's trial referenced the decision in Brooks v. Texas and agreed that the situation is applicable to the case at hand.

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.

While the Court concluded that no person could be compelled to stand trial in prison garb without their consent, wearing jail clothes could be a strategy to obtain sympathy from a jury.

This omission plainly did not result from any lack of appreciation of the issue, for respondent had raised the question with the jail attendant prior to trial.

[7] The defendant never conceded to wearing his prison clothes while on trial and a retrial should be awarded because of the violation of his fourteenth amendment rights under due process.

If the defendant does not knowingly waive his rights then the court must rule the error harmless beyond a doubt or the accused can be awarded a retrial.