Scrivener v. Commonwealth, 539 S.W.2d 291 (Ky. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Scrivener v. Commonwealth, 539 S.W.2d 291 (Ky. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Michael Lewis v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (ky, 2022-01-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael Lewis v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Ky. · 2022 · confidence medium
Relying on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Estelle v. Williams, we held that requiring a defendant to be tried in prison clothing creates a “possible impairment of the presumption [of innocence] so basic to the adversary system” such that it would be “repugnant to the concept 23 Scrivener v. Commonwealth, 539 S.W.2d 291, 292 (Ky. 1976); Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512 (1976). 10 of equal justice embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment.”24 We fail to find Lewis’s case so analogous to Scrivener to come to the same result.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maurice Deal v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Ky. · 2020 · confidence medium
Instead, the Estep court was guided only by the Supreme Court’s directives in Estelle 43 This Court in Scrivener v. Commonwealth applied the rule articulated in Estelle to hold that the defendant’s conviction must be reversed, despite “overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt,” because the tried court failed to grant the defendant’s motion for a continuance so that he could be tried in street clothing rather than prison clothing. 539 S.W.2d 291, 292 (Ky. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maurice Deal v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Ky. · 2020 · confidence medium
Instead, the Estep court was guided only by the Supreme Court’s directives in Estelle 43 This Court in Scrivener v. Commonwealth applied the rule articulated in Estelle to hold that the defendant’s conviction must be reversed, despite “overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt,” because the trial court failed to grant the defendant’s motion for a continuance so that he could be tried in street clothing rather than prison clothing. 539 S.W.2d 291, 292 (Ky. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maurice Deal v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Ky. · 2020 · confidence medium
Instead, the Estep court was guided only by the Supreme Court’s directives in Estelle 43 This Court in Scrivener v. Commonwealth applied the rule articulated in Estelle to hold that the defendant’s conviction must be reversed, despite “overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt,” because the trial court failed to grant the defendant’s motion for a continuance so that he could be tried in street clothing rather than prison clothing. 539 S.W.2d 291, 292 (Ky. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) George Robert White v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Ky. · 2019 · confidence medium
Consistent with these principles, the “State cannot, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, compel an accused to stand trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable prison clothesf.]” Estelle v. Williams, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 1697 (U.S. 1976); Scrivener v. Commonwealth, 539 S.W.2d 291, 292 (Ky. 1976); Stacy at 799-800 ; RCr1 8.28(5) (“During his or her appearance in court before a jury the defendant shall not be required to wear the distinctive clothing of a prisoner.”); 9 Leslie W.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cook v. Commonwealth (2×)
Ky. · 2004 · confidence medium
Robinson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 926 S.W.2d 853, 854 (1996); Scrivener v. Commonwealth, Ky., 539 S.W.2d 291, 293 (1976); Dial v. Commonwealth, 142 Ky. 32 , 133 S.W. 976, 977 (1911) (“When, therefore, the judgment of conviction has been set aside by the court rendering it, when it had jurisdiction to do so, the verdict stands as if judgment had not been rendered.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Riley SCRIVENER
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky
Kentucky Supreme Court.
Jun 25, 1976.
539 S.W.2d 291
Geoffrey P. Morris, Staff Atty., Jefferson District Public Defender, Louisville, for appellant., Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Robert W. Riley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for ap-pellee.
Clayton.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
CLAYTON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered March 14,1975, on a jury verdict which found appellant guilty on charges of burglary and of being an habitual criminal under KRS 431.190.

Appellant raises this meritorious question: Did the trial court err by failing to grant a defense motion requesting a continuance, so that appellant could be tried in street clothing rather than identifiable prison clothing?

In the recent case of Estelle, Corrections Director v. Williams, — U.S. —, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (decided May 3, 1976), the Supreme Court of the United States held that an accused may not be compelled to stand trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable prison clothing, provided such is objected to and timely brought to the attention of the trial court. Appellant’s motion for a continuance in the instant case was sufficient to meet this requirement.

In Williams, supra, Chief Justice Burger, speaking for the majority, stated:

“The potential effects of presenting an accused before the jury in prison attire need not, however, be measured in the abstract. Courts have, with few exceptions, determined that an accused should not be compelled to go to trial in prison or jail clothing because of the possible impairment of the presumption so basic to the adversary system. . . . ”
******
“Similarly troubling is the fact that compelling the accused to stand trial in jail garb operates usually against only those who cannot post bail prior to trial. Persons who can secure release are not subjected to this condition. To impose the condition on one category of defendants, over objection, would be repugnant to the concept of equal justice embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956).”

A review of the record in the instant case shows overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt on the principal charge. Nonetheless, the judgment must be reversed in accordance with the dictates of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Other issues raised in this appeal will not be discussed in this opinion, but upon retrial of the case the prosecuting[*293] attorney should not bring to the attention of the jury any filed away or dismissed charges against the appellant.

The judgment is reversed with directions that appellant be granted a new trial.

All concur.