opinion: Park ANDERSON, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, the State of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. Henry Edward WATT, Appellee.
  No. 72-1666.
  United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
  Argued and Submitted Feb. 20, 1973.
  Decided March 19, 1973.
  Paul Crowe, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma, with him on the brief), for appellant.
  James Goteher, McAlester, Okl., for appellee.
  Before SETH, McWILLIAMS, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  The appellee, Henry Edward Watt, was tried in the Oklahoma state courts in 1967 for the “Illegal Sale of Marihuana After a Former Conviction of a Felony.” He was found guilty by the jury and also sentenced by the jury. The sentence was for thirty-seven years pursuant to the state habitual criminal act. The record showed that defendant had sold five penny matchboxes of marihuana. At the time the information for this offense was filed, he was in the Oklahoma County Jail on an eighteen-month sentence following a guilty plea to the charge of receiving a stolen credit card.
  Appellee’s conviction on the marihuana charge was appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals where it was affirmed. Okl.Cr., 450 P.2d 227.
  Watt also sought a writ of habeas corpus in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which was denied. He then petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma for a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied and he appealed to this court. This court remanded the case to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Watt had a deliberate purpose in appearing before the jury in jail coveralls with the words, “Oklahoma County Jail 44” stenciled in large letters across the back; also, if no such purpose was found, if the District Court could find, under Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969), that beyond a reasonable doubt appellee’s right to a fair trial was not prejudiced by his appearance before the jury in jail clothing. Watt v. Page, 452 F.2d 1174 (10th Cir.).
  After an evidentiary hearing on remand, the District Court found that there was no “. . . deliberate desire on the part of the petitioner to be tried in his jail clothes for the purpose of sympathy or any other purpose in his behalf,” and that . . the petitioner was prejudiced to some degree by appearing before the jury in the jail clothes above described.” The District Court then granted the writ of habeas corpus, but stayed the writ for ninety days to allow the state to retry Watt. The state, through Warden Anderson, then brought this appeal.
  The state asserts that the trial court misinterpreted our opinion in Watt v. Page to hold that the trial of an accused in jail clothing is a per se constitutional violation, and that fact alone was the basis for the grant of the writ in this ease. This the state urges would follow Hernandez v. Beto, 443 F.2d 634 (5th Cir.), and Brooks v. Texas, 381 F.2d 619 (5th Cir.), where statements appear that it is inherently unfair to try a defendant for a crime while garbed in his jail uniform.
  We stated in Watt v. Page, 452 F.2d 1174 (10th Cir.), that the nature of the clothing worn by a defendant at his trial is not inherently prejudicial to his right to a fair and impartial trial. We find that the District Court correctly interpreted this decision, and granted the writ only after making a finding that appellee was prejudiced by appearing before the jury in jail clothing.
  Appellant also urges us to hold that the finding by the trial court that the appearance of appellee before the jury in jail clothing was prejudicial to some degree was not supported by substantial evidence. We find, however, that it was supported and the finding of the trial court will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. There is evidence in the record that appellee was referred to during the trial as “the man in coveralls” and that during his closing argument the prosecuting attorney made reference to the appellee and “his kind.” And as we said in Watt v. Page: “The length of the sentence here imposed by the jury which also tried the petitioner could be regarded as an indication of the jury’s prejudice toward the defendant.” Thus we find that the trial court’s finding was not clearly erroneous, and that our instructions in Watt v. Page, supra, were fully complied with by the District Court.
  The order of the trial court is affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama