In 2012, Aurora theater shooter James Holmes appeared in court with unruly, dyed orange-red hair that matched his prison garb and made him appear like The Joker.
James Holmes in a photo taken at the Arapahoe County Detention Center shortly after the July 20, 2012 shooting.
Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70 more at the midnight premiere of the Batman movie “The Dark Knight Rises,” so his appearance raised eyebrows — he dressed like a crazed cartoon killer.
That characterization lies at the heart of Holmes’ trial, now ongoing, three years after the July 20, 2012 massacre. Prosecutors have been trying to portray Holmes as sane and that he should be sentenced to death. His defense team later this summer will attempt to paint a portrait of a mentally ill person, one who shouldn’t be subject to Colorado’s capital punishment law.
“Normally, when we go in the courtroom, whether as a juror, plaintiff, or whatever, we tend to dress for the occasion,” said Michael Freedman, a clinical and forensic psychologist and part-time psychology professor at the University of Colorado Boulder.
“Going into the courtroom, we try to make some sort of impression,” Freedman said, “and Holmes’ initial impression was not that of the average person going into a courtroom.”
During his trial, Holmes has been cleaned up. He has replaced his prison jumpsuit with collared shirts and khaki. He is not cabled to a desk. Â He stands up a lot in court between breaks. And instead of shackles, he has been discreetly anchored by a harness connected to a cable, almost invisible to people in the courtroom.
These changes in Holmes’ appearance did not come without a fight. According to court documents, on June 3, 2014, Holmes’ legal team requested a court order that would allow him to wear civilian clothing during his trial and proposed removing extreme security measures around the courtroom.
Although the prosecution objected,, the order was approved by the court on a week later because of U.S. Supreme Court precedent and Colorado case law. Forcing the defendant to wear identifiable prison clothing is seen as prejudicial, so the court cannot compel him to be tried in such clothes.
It used to be that people in custody were required to appear in court in handcuffs, but that has changed over the years, said Colette Cribari, who worked in the Boulder District Attorney’s office as a prosecutor for 26 years.  She now owns her own criminal defense and prosecution firm.
Because of this change that occurred almost 70 years ago, defendants now have the right to appear in court free from factors such as handcuffs, which might tend to portray them as criminals before their guilt is proved. Therefore, Holmes had the option to wear “civilian” clothing or prison garb and shackles.
With a crime of this magnitude, some may wonder if a change as small as clothing choice will have an impact on the trial or sentencing. Appearance has a legal impact in the courtroom whether or not you are a witness, defendant, or lawyer, Cribari said, but that the impact that is made is often based upon factors such as age or education level..
It turns out, what someone wears can have a psychological impact as well, Freedman said.
This psychological effect plays a part in the courtroom, especially, because a judge and jury are constantly evaluating the defendant.
Teresa Keller, a licensed counselor with experience in the prison system, said that this is because of the trigger that the images and appearances have on memory.
“(Appearance) can manifest on a conscious or subconscious level, depending on the individual’s level of awareness and insight,” Keller said.
The psychological effect appearances in the courtroom make is so great that an entire industry called jury consulting has emerged to advise lawyers, attorneys and defendants on how to appear while they are in the courtroom.
According to Cribari, any large shift in appearance is likely a legal decision, but it is ultimately up to defendants themselves.
“You can only tell them how to dress,” Cribari said. “You cannot really dress them.”
If the way Holmes appears in court was indeed a legal decision, Freedman said, there is a large thought process behind the decisions that play out in the courtroom.
“(Defendants) can dress in a manner that depicts that they are a respectful individual, an individual that is sane, or potentially that an individual is suffering from mental health issues,” Freedman said. “Generally, the goal of the appearance of the client is to be consistent with the impression that they are trying to convey to the judge or jury.”
For now, Holmes and his legal team seem to be making an effort for the defendant to appear sane, and Keller said his appearance may be attempting to alter the psychological impact that he has on decision makers.
In 2012, regardless of who made the decisions for his appearance, he did not look relatable to onlookers. This may be the most influential impact on those who make the final decisions, Freedman said.
“(His appearance) could make the jury members relate to him more as a human being,” Freedman said. “Now, he appears more like how someone’s son looks when they get ready for work in the morning. We typically don’t like killing people we relate to.”
Editor’s note: CU News Corps will honor the victims of this tragedy with every post via this graphic.Â
