Posted on 06/19/2009 10:02:59 PM PDT by Steelfish
JUNE 17, 2009
Should Witnesses be Allowed to Wear Niqabs While Testifying?
By Ashby Jones
In our opinion, the best legal controversies arise when two compelling principles smack headlong into each other.
Here’s one: should a devout Muslim woman be required to lift her veil when testifying in court? The issue pits two cherished American values: the desire to let people practice their religions freely against the desire for transparency and integrity within our justice system.
The issue has been kicking around courts in Michigan for some time, as it turns out. And the Michigan Supreme Court made a bit of news on the topic on Wednesday when it voted to give judges authority over how witnesses dress in court.
The new statewide rule, which gives judges the authority to regulate the appearance of witnesses — such as asking them to remove face coverings, was approved by a 5-2 vote. The dissenters said there should be an exception for people whose clothing is dictated by their religion.
According to the AP story, the issue arose recently in Michigan, which has a large Muslim population, when a Muslim woman went to small-claims court to contest a $3,000 charge from a rental-car company to repair a vehicle that she said thieves had broken into.
Hamtramck District Judge Paul Paruk told Ginnah Muhammad (pictured) he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness.
Muhammad refused, insisting on keeping her niqab on during the 2006 hearing. Judge Paruk dismissed the case, claiming he needed to see her face to determine her truthfulness.
Muhammad sued the judge in federal court, and lost. The case is currently on appeal to the Sixth Circuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
They should not be allowed nor should they be allowed to wear them when taking a drivers license picture.
NO!
I think the proper way to handle this is to let the witness wear the niqab. But if her face is covered and the jury (or judge, if there is no jury) feels that they cannot judge the credibility of her testimony, they should feel free to reject her testimony in its entirety. While they can already do that, the niqab would cast doubt upon their testimony in many people’s minds and they should be aware of the damage it could do to their credibility as a witness.
It’s difficult for a fact-finder to judge the demeanor and weigh the credibility of a witness when her face is a piece of cloth. Such testimony would be a waste of time — I would probably give it little or no weight.
6th A allows a defendant to confront a prosecution witness. I think this most definitely won’t be allowed in a criminal case.
If the 10 commandments can’t be in the court room...... they damn sure better not allow religous Niqabs either!!
And Judges shouldn’t be allowed descretion either, since they have no descretion with the 10 commandments!!
But I don’t expect equal treatment anymore in this country.
Absolutely not!
Two members of the Michigan Supreme Court voted to allow people to testify in court wearing masks.
And there was just one extra judicial vote on the MA and CA Supreme Courts to legalize Gay & Lesbian marriages!
Nice work. Thanks for the pic post! I’d like to wear one for Halloween.
Not to defend those that want to wear a tent to court … but, the wearing of Niqabs still allows a defendant to confront a witness, just can’t see her face.
Agreed, but as post 13 points out, it does not prevent the defendant from confronting the witness. As for the jurors, if someone testified wearing a niqab, it would be quite reasonable to ignore their testimony. Who is really under that niqab? Why are they saying what they are saying? What is their motivation for testifying in the way they are? Their testimony might be rendered worthless by their insistence on covering their face.
Thank you! lol
Not to place to fine a point on this. But if a criminal defendant cannot expose the witness’ demeanor as an integral part of cross-examination, then the witness’ entire testimony may have to be dismissed and, since this is a constitutional right (unlike in civil cases), the charges themselves would have to be dropped.
I’ve always found it troubling that judges pass judments based on things like demeanor and appearance.
I don’t see any good reason why they need to do as they do, but if you have one, let me know.
If the case is criminal and there are other witnesses not insisting on a niqab, the prosecution may still be able to make a case based on the other’s testimony. If the niqab witness is the only witness or is critical to the case, the case may fall apart right there. It may never get to jury deliberations.
Another thought: if women can claim the wearing of niqabs in court due to religious beliefs, shouldn’t men be able to do the same? Imagine if the defendant, both lawyers and the judge all wore niqabs. And don’t forget the jury, either.
Bill O’Reilly has a regular segment on body-language and I believe a “science” of this has developed.
At the very least if you are bringing an action against someone or if you are testifying for the prosecution, yes you must show your face. BTW, I think Judges have had much to say about how we dress in their courtrooms throughout US history.
Applying for a driver’s license assumes the intent to actually drive. How about that headgear? What’s the peripheral vision? Is she going to be using the mesh to cover her eyes? Somehow I think that driving while wearing naqib is more dangerous than driving while texting. Face it: the whole point of this kind of garb is concealment.
That is my take. And even in civil cases, you claim might well be dismissed. If you testify for the side dragging someoen into court, plaintif or prosecution, the defense gets to demand to see your face.
There is such a thing as a truthful demeanor; it is more than mere appearance.
This dhimmi handwringing has been going on for years and isn’t it about time to end it?
No. Sorry. People living in the Unites States and engaging with any governmental authority or process within this country must fully identify themselves during the course of that engagement which includes revealing and not obscuring the face.
What is so hard about that.
Michigan - our first Sharia state, how special.
If she wants to be devout, shouldn’t she toss out her own testimony - assuming she doesn’t have a second woman to back her up?
cultural jihad bump
Religious Freedom has never been absolute. Normally, if it doesn’t impinge upon the rights of others it is tolerated. You have a right to “Face” your accuser, if your accuser prevents that, then they lose their status of accuser.
You have a right to make personal sacrifices but you do not have the right to make others sacrifice their rights.
Take for example dietry requirements. Muslims and Jews do not eat or touch anything made from the pig. They have a right to exclude businesses that serve or prepare pork when dining out or applying for a job. They do not have a right to demand a pork free environment from those business.
Two things you'll never see the American Criminal Lovers Union supporting is Christians and the Second Amendment. But oh, how they love the muslims and anyone else who is anti-American.
Niqabs are not religious . They are not required by any religion to be considered devout .
Niqabs are a fashion statement.
See any sand storms blowing round Michigan lately?
When someone covers their face , for me , they cease to exist . Unless they're in a blizzard, a sand storm or they're holding a gun.
Who the hell do these phuking ragheads think they are? If they want the country to change its 200+ yr old traditions, tell them to go back to their lovely countries of origin.
(disregarding a Bench Trial)
That's an old Lawyer's Trick. Its like un-ringing a Bell. It can't be done. Once a question is asked an answered that's it. A judge can order the jury to disregard it all he wants, it's too late, the Bell was rung. The jury will remember it, and use it in deliberations, even subconsciously and nor realize they are.
As to wearing Niqabs -- NO. That violates the Constitution.
One has The Right to face their accuser.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've played one in court.
I don’t see any good reason why they need to do as they do, but if you have one, let me know.
Perhaps you don't realize it, but the way people look around and fidget, their manner of speaking and intonation, their reaction when faced with an inconsistency in their story, all provide additional clues and context for what they're saying. Demeanor and appearance on the stand is only one of many factors a fact-finder may take into consideration.
A great example might be to compare an in-person conversation to communications via e-mail or on a web site such as FR. Why do you think people sometimes feel compelled to include a "sarcasm tag" in their posts? Because unless you write carefully and deliberately, you stand a good chance of being misunderstood. I think that's one of the first things people pick up on when they're new to Internet communications.
How do you dress for a job interview? Appearances matter.
How do you dress after you get the job? Certainly not with as much precision and dedication. Basically it's an art of deception. I don't see why this factor should be allowed to affect the sentence on an accused.
Appearances can be deceptive. Most often, it is.
As to wearing Niqabs -- NO. That violates the Constitution. One has The Right to face their accuser.
*********************
Agreed. Excellent post, btw.
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.