THE NERD DEFENSE 753
either a “not guilty” verdict or a “guilty” verdict.^139 Rather,
these studies found that wearing eyeglasses has a significant
indirect effect on verdict outcome.^140 This is because wearing
eyeglasses relates to increased ratings of intelligence, and
perceived intelligence positively affects jurors’ verdicts in
violent-crime scenarios and negatively affects jurors’ verdicts in
white-collar-crime scenarios.^141 While these studies merely
scratch the surface of the effect of eyeglasses on juror
perception, they lend support to the premise that jurors do not
relinquish their biases concerning eyewear in a courtroom
setting.^142
Research shows that jurors discriminate on the basis of
appearance,^143 race,^144 and gender.^145 To compensate for juror
biases,^146 defendants are urged to appear before the court well
groomed and in business-type attire.^147 Are unnecessary
eyeglasses simply another means to offset negative juror biases?
Wearing unnecessary eyeglasses, like wearing proper courtroom
(^139) Id. at 4.
(^140) Id.
(^141) Id. at 2–4.
(^142) Id. at 3–4, 6 (including a response from Tara Trask, a jury consultant
with 17 years of experience in litigation strategy, who stated, “I have seen
jurors tend to assign credibility to those who fit the stereotypes they have”).
(^143) Efran, supra note 74, at 45–54.
(^144) See Fein et al., supra note 82, at 491 (indicating that “research has
found that a jury’s racial composition... can have a significant effect on the
verdict that jury reaches”); see also Wiley, supra note 74, at 214 (noting that
“it is easier for jurors to imagine themselves in the defendant’s situation
when the defendant is of the same race as the juror”).
(^145) Ahola et al., supra note 70, at 321 (finding that “[i]n the courtroom
situation, the defendant will be judged more severely by a judge or jurors of
the same gender as the defendant him/herself; being sentenced by a judge of
the opposite sex will be to the advantage of the defendant”).
(^146) See THORNTON, supra note 83, at 103–08 (noting that the legal
system acknowledges that jurors “bring to any new experience all past
experiences and attitudes,” but that “it is not always possible to recognize
those biases and eliminate those jurors” through the jury selection process).
(^147) Mark J. Sullivan, A Defendant’s Guide to Courtroom Etiquette,
CRIME, JUST. & AM. 34, 35 (2001) (suggesting to criminal defendants that
jurors should, at first impression, be unable to discern through dress who is
the defendant and who is the attorney).