THE NERD DEFENSE 757
trial, only one defendant had donned eyeglasses.^165 Prosecutors
took advantage of the opportunity to suggest to jurors that the
defendants were being “dishonest in misrepresenting their
appearance.”^166 All five defendants were found guilty.^167 After
the trial, one prosecutor suggested that the defendants were
putting on a “schoolboy act.”^168 Patricia Jefferies, grandmother
of one of the victims, agreed, arguing that the defendants’
strategy was aimed at “influencing the jury, trying to make them
think they’re Boy Scouts or something.”^169 Together, these cases
demonstrate the ease with which a defendant can add eyeglasses
to his or her look to influence the jury.
IV. THE INTERSECTION OF THE NERD DEFENSE AND THE
CHANGE-OF-APPEARANCE INSTRUCTION
A. Harris v. United StatesThe case of Harris v. United States marks the first instance
in which a defendant’s use of nonprescriptive eyewear at trial
became an explicit issue on appeal.^170 In July 2008, a jury for
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia found Donnell
(^165) See Benjamin R. Freed, Murder Defendants Try Wearing Hipster
Glasses in Fashionable Attempt to Win Over Juries, DCIST (Mar. 27, 2012,
4:15 PM), http://dcist.com/2012/03/defense_attorneys_try_giving_client.php
(noting that Lamar Williams was the only defendant known to have ever
worn eyeglasses before trial).
(^166) Id.
(^167) Five Men Convicted of Charges for Their Roles in Crimes That Led to
Five Murders, Nine Other Shootings, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE (May 7, 2012),
http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/news/2012/may/12-161.html (reporting that
all five men were convicted of murder, conspiracy, and other charges related
to violent crimes that culminated in the March 30, 2010 fatal shootings on
South Capitol Street); see also Carter, No. 2010 CF1 005677; District of
Columbia v. Carter, No. 2010 CF1 005176 (D.C. Super. Ct. 2012); District
of Columbia v. Best, No. 2010 CF1 007370 (D.C. Super. Ct. 2012); District
of Columbia v. Bost, No. 2010 CF1 007155 (D.C. Super. Ct. 2012); District
of Columbia v. Williams, No. 2010 CF1 007157 (D.C. Super. Ct. 2012).
(^168) Alexander, supra note 9.
(^169) Freed, supra note 165.
(^170) Harris v. United States, No. 08-CF-1405, at 5 (D.C. Cir. 2012).