The Volokh Conspiracy is one of the most interesting legal blogs out there (see this blog’s earlier post today re:  The Citizen Accused).

Here is another recent sample from the Volokh site:

By Eugene Volokh on November 5, 2013, 7:33 pm

An interesting question, which Carver v. State (Oct. 31, 2013) answers “yes,” following several other such decisions:

After a jury trial, Rebecca Michelle Carver was convicted of pointing a firearm at another and reckless conduct…. Her sole [grounds for appeal] presents a question not previously considered in Georgia: whether the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine seeking to prohibit the victim [who was on active duty in the Navy but on leave for the trial] from wearing his military uniform at trial. Because Carver has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion, we affirm.

The court cited various similar cases from other states; here’s a sample passage, from a 2006 Tennessee case:

Likewise, we find no error in allowing the victim in this case to testify dressed in her military uniform. While it may be true that the jury looked favorably upon a witness who was serving her count[r]y, we cannot automatically assume that the jury afforded her testimony more weight or credibility based solely on her appearance in military uniform. We find this little different from a police officer testifying in a police uniform. As argued by the State, whether a witness or a victim is a common laborer, an engineer, or a doctor, is a fact which may be considered by the jury but is clearly not determinative of the credibility of that person. Contrary to the Appellant’s argument, we cannot equate this to a situation where the defendant is forced to appear in prison attire. This issue is without merit.

The court notes that one case from another state barred a defendant from appearing in military attire, but concludes that it’s inapposite, without expressing an opinion on whether it’s correct on its own terms.