THE NERD DEFENSE 747
jurors to see.^106 Alternatively, Alan Dershowitz, a criminal
defense attorney and Harvard Law School professor, suggested
that “the swastika and other tattoos [were] an extension of
Ditullio’s persona, and masking the marks could be construed as
misleading to a jury.”^107 Nonetheless, the court agreed with
Ditullio’s defense attorney that unless Ditullio’s neo-Nazi tattoos
were covered, his physical appearance could prejudice the
jury.^108 Ditullio’s tattoos may have suggested to the jury that he
had unfavorable characteristics—essentially, that embodied in
Ditullio’s persona was an outwardly racist and hateful being.^109
In one of the most publicized capital murder trials in
history,^110 Casey Anthony’s defense team strategically selected
preppy clothing to project a childish and innocent image.^111
(^106) Schwartz, supra note 85 (reporting that Ditullio’s lawyer argued for
his client’s tattoos to be covered up because “[t]here’s no doubt in my mind
without the makeup being used, there’s no way a jury could look at John and
judge him fairly”). Ditullio’s second trial was widely discussed because of
the court’s decision to have the state pay for his neo-Nazi tattoos to be
covered at trial. Id.
(^107) Cindy E. Rodriguez, Neo-Nazi Accused of Hate-Crime Murder Gets
Make-over, ABC NEWS (Dec. 7, 2010), http://abcnews.go.com/US/neo-nazi-
accused-hate-crime-murder-makeover/story?id=12324409#.UIXSiUKRrww.
(^108) Ditullio, No. CRC06-05827CFAWS; see also K. McKinney,
Brunvand Wins Motion to Have Murder Defendant’s Tattoos Covered During
Trial, ACQUITTER.COM (Dec. 7, 2009), http://acquitter.com/news/florida/
brunvand-wins-motion-cover-tattoos/.
(^109) Greg Wims, the President of the Victims’ Rights Foundation, stated,
“People should be able to see these tattoos. The jury should see what kind of
person he is. Of course those tattoos are central to the case.” Rodriguez,
supra note 107; see Ryan Lozar, Tattoos as Evidence, CALIFORNIA LAWYER
57–58 (2012) (explaining that snap judgments about a defendant’s character
that are based on physical appearance are especially severe when the
defendant has a tattoo, and noting that depending on the subject of the tattoo,
the defendant may be perceived as “seedy, provocative, or downright
dangerous”).
(^110) State v. Anthony, No. 48-2008-CF-015606-O (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2011);
see also State of Florida v. Casey Marie Anthony, NINTH JUD. CIRCUIT CT.
FLA., http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/ (last
visited Mar. 16, 2013) (highlighting the court’s media policies).
(^111) See Bigbee, supra note 89 (describing a change in Casey Anthony’s
courtroom attire from “stylish in a sexually-suggestive way” to “a modest,
plaid shirt under a drab gray cardigan sweater”). Casey Anthony was accused