Each of us is familiar with the adage that a ‘picture is worth a thousand words.’ It implies that visual images and sights can communicate information far more efficiently than the written word. While the adage commonly refers to drawings and photographs, it can also be extended to include our physical appearances. And so, armed with this knowledge, many of us choose our clothes with care, coif our hair, wear makeup, or even opt to undergo cosmetic procedures. We do so in the hope of influencing how we are perceived by the people around us. Or, put differently, controlling the thousand words our physical presence inspires in others. Understanding that these practices are merely one aspect of the larger social performance in which we are all players, it should also be unsurprising that a courtroom would operate like any other social setting.

After all, judges and juries in criminal trials are people, too. And as such, they are not simply judging cases on their merits, asking whether or not the Crown has successfully reached the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ threshold necessary for a conviction. Rather, in their minds, they are likely also asking whether or not the accused person looks like someone who would commit the crime for which they have been charged. Does an accused with facial tattoos and a metal grill over their teeth look like someone capable of committing drug or gun-related offences? Does an accused who visibly presents as Arab or Muslim look like someone capable of engaging in forms of domestic violence or even terrorism-related offences? While defence counsel cannot reasonably be expected to single-handedly displace problematic cultural and racial stereotypes, skilled practitioners do seek to mitigate those effects in the courtroom.

Indeed, on the first day of a lengthy jury trial I recently witnessed, a client – an individual of significant financial means – appeared in court ‘looking expensive.’ The client’s clothing and accessories were emblazoned with the logos of several high-end European fashion houses. After seeing this, defence counsel immediately made a number of suggestions to modify the client’s appearance. Counsel instructed the client to remain wearing their jacket and ensure that it remained buttoned-up to hide some of the expensive accessories, which included an attention-grabbing belt buckle and a large designer watch. Counsel also instructed their client to “tone it down” moving forward. Later, I asked the defence counsel why they gave their client these instructions. They told me that such a display would not ‘sit well’ with a jury.

On another occasion, we had arrived at the courthouse a bit early for our client’s hearing. With some spare time, we entered an adjacent courtroom and observed an ongoing jury trial for a first-degree murder charge. We observed a portion of the Crown’s cross-examination of the accused. After watching the exchange for several minutes, I leaned over and whispered to my colleague that I could not believe that the individual testifying was accused of such a serious crime. The accused was a young man in his early 20s with a quiet demeanour. He wore a non-descript grey sweater, un-styled short hair, and thick Coke-bottle glasses. I said that the accused appeared to be “nerdy” and that he could easily be “an undergrad at any university in Canada.” My defence lawyer colleague laughed quietly and said, “That’s the point. Jury trials are theatre.” The Crown, I was told, had presented evidence where the accused was dressed in a way that would – stereotypically – be associated with street gangs: dreadlocks, gold chains, and baggy clothing, but, of course, a jury was never going to see that in person. Several days later, the Toronto Star would report that the accused had been found not guilty on the murder charge.

Just as judges and juries silently evaluate the accused, they also evaluate the lawyers sitting before them. How are they dressed? Do they look clean and professional or are they a bit dishevelled? Are they attractive? The answers to these questions, one defence counsel explained, can impact a lawyer’s credibility. “Looking professional,” they mused, “earns you trust with judges and juries.” Their observations seem to make sense. If someone’s appearance communicates that they take themselves seriously, those around them are more likely to follow suit and take them seriously too. Thus, a polished, attractive, lawyer may win more favour with a jury or a judge than an unkempt colleague with wrinkled robes.

Fortunately for all parties involved, many aspects of one’s physical appearance can be changed relatively easily for a court performance. An accused person who may stereotypically look the part can be asked to swap out baggy clothes and gold chains for cable knits and glasses. And, given that the stakes are often so high in criminal proceedings, it makes sense that a savvy defence counsel would try and earn all the good favour they can by, as one lawyer put it, “leaving nothing to chance.”