758 JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY
Harris guilty of second degree murder for the fatal shooting of
Michael Richardson.^171 Soon after sentencing, Harris filed a
notice of appeal with the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals.^172 Harris’ use of eyewear, a “seemingly innocuous
detail” during the trial, was a “key issue at the heart of [his]
appeal.”^173 On appeal, Chief Judge Eric Washington found
Harris’ use of eyeglasses to be one of the case’s most
compelling issues.^174 Throughout trial, Harris consistently
donned eyeglasses despite not having worn eyeglasses prior to
trial.^175 This prompted the prosecution to request a change-of-
appearance instruction, a request that the judge granted.^176
When a court issues a change-of-appearance instruction, the
language used by the court can be damning to the defendant if
the jury determines that the defendant has, in fact, changed his
or her appearance.^177 This is due to the inference of a
(^171) The government presented evidence that Harris entered Joe’s Steak
and Egg Restaurant at approximately 2:00 AM on June 29, 2007. Harris
asked to use the phone, and, when his request was denied, he left the
restaurant. Harris subsequently reentered the restaurant, where witnesses saw
him arguing with Richardson, an intern with the D.C. Public Defender
Service. Some time later, multiple gunshots were fired, fatally wounding
Richardson. Id.
(^172) See Court Cases Online Database, D.C. CTS.,
https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf (last visited Dec. 1, 2012) (search
for “Harris, Donnell”) (reporting that Harris first filed a notice of appeal on
Oct. 21, 2008).
(^173) Tillman, supra note 5. On appeal, Harris also argued that the trial
court erred by (1) overruling the defendant’s objections to statements made
during the prosecution’s closing argument, (2) excluding from jury
instructions the defendant’s theory that someone else committed the murder,
and (3) denying a motion for acquittal despite there being insufficient
evidence against the defendant. See Brief of Appellant, Harris, No. 08-CF-
1405.
(^174) Tillman, supra note 5.
(^175) Harris, No. 08-CF-1405, at 5.
(^176) Id. at 6.
(^177) Change-of-appearance instructions “contemplate[] some independent
evidence” that the defendant is the one who actually changed his or her
appearance. United States v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir. 1991).
For example, this occurs where a defendant, shortly after committing a
crime, cuts or colors his or her hair or shaves his beard. Id.