Well, is this ethical conduct on the judge's part? Is he helping ensure a fair trial or keeping important information about the character of the defendant from the jury?

---

ST. PETERSBURG, Florida (Reuters) – A neo-Nazi gang member went on trial for murder on Monday with his swastika and other tattoos covered by makeup on the order of a Florida judge who thought they could prejudice jurors.

The judge ordered the state to pay for a cosmetologist to apply makeup before trial each day to cover up the tattoos on John Ditullio's face and neck, which include a swastika, barbed wire and an obscene word.

Ditullio, 23, is charged with stabbing to death 17-year-old Kristofer King in 2006 in New Port Richey, north of St. Petersburg.

His lawyer argued in a pretrial motion that the tattoos, which Ditullio acquired after his arrest, could prejudice a jury. The judge agreed but ruled that any tattoos Ditullio had before his arrest should not be covered.

Ditullio could face the death penalty if convicted. (Reporting by Robert Green, editing by Jim Loney and Doina Chiacu)

---

I say it's wrong. The judge is essentially tampering with evidence. The defendant has a right to face his accuser. That's Constitutional law. But shouldn't the jury have the right to see the real defendant?

This is in a different category than buying the guy a new suite for the trial. If willing to carve a permanent hate slogan on your face, doesn't that say something about you that runs deeper than your choice of clothing?

What do you think?

Chris Reich, The Ethics Project