Replies

More from the trial. The more I hear from Judge Jones, the more I like him.

"Everything you do in the classroom is teaching"

Plaintiffs testify at afternoon session

This afternoon, three plaintiffs in our case testified regarding school board meetings they attended and their feelings about the curriculum change. Julie Smith, Christy Rehm, and Beth Eveland all took the stand.

Mrs. Rehm, who is a teacher in a public school outside of York County, testified about the impact of behaviors in the classroom.

"As a teacher, I feel teachers in general have been harmed," she stated. "Everything you do in the classroom is teaching. How I dress is teaching. Statements I don't make teach my students."

"This has spilled over into other classes," she continued. "Children of school board members say, 'Do you think we came from monkeys? How can you think we came from monkeys?'"

Mrs. Rehm is the mother of four children, including a daughter in the ninth grade.

Earlier, Julie Smith conveyed her concerns about the impact of school events on her family's religious life.

According to Mrs. Smith, her teenage daughter said, "Mom, evolution's a lie. What kind of Christian are you?"

Mrs. Eveland discussed board meetings, calling them "a circus-like atmosphere."

"I remember [Dover School Board member] Bill Buckingham saying, '2,000 years ago someone died on a cross. Isn't someone going to take a stand for him?'"

Mrs. Eveland responded by sending a letter to school officials and a letter to the editor of the York Daily Record, which the paper published. When Steve Harvey, our attorney who handled direct questioning, asked her to read the letter, opposing counsel objected, calling it "hearsay."

"Why is it hearsay?" Judge Jones asked.

After listening to the defense counsel's point, his honor asked, "Who wrote the letter?"

"She did."

"Overruled."

"As a teacher, I feel teachers in general have been harmed," she stated. "Everything you do in the classroom is teaching. How I dress is teaching. Statements I don't make teach my students." "This has spilled over into other classes," she continued. "Children of school board members say, 'Do you think we came from monkeys? How can you think we came from monkeys?'" Mrs. Rehm is the mother of four children, including a daughter in the ninth grade.

It's not an unreasonable question. If evolution is true, the teacher should have no problem explaining how.

Earlier, Julie Smith conveyed her concerns about the impact of school events on her family's religious life. According to Mrs. Smith, her teenage daughter said, "Mom, evolution's a lie. What kind of Christian are you?"

If ID has not been taught in the classroom, one cannot blame the school board. What students hear from others, who have freedom of speech outside the classroom, cannot be barred by any court in most cases; and especially if it is religious in nature.

Win or lose, the plaintiffs are going to be exposing exposing evolution to new levels of scrutiny. The simple matter of Miller admitting that evolution is not a fact will not be ignored by the IDers or creationists.

"Why is it hearsay?" Judge Jones asked.
After listening to the defense counsel's point, his honor asked, "Who wrote the letter?"
"She did."
"Overruled."

Fine, but that wasn't a tough call. The lawyer who claimed it's inadmissible for someone to read her own letter was being an idiot.

Bear in mind that if this judge wants to rule for the defendant School Board, he also wants to make his ruling "bullet-proof," that is, not easily overturned on appeal. One type of error that the plaintiffs could raise on appeal is if the judge were to refuse to allow in some allegedly vital bit of their evidence. However, if the judge lets in everything the plaintiffs offer (and the fans of the plaintiffs' side are confidently predicting victory because it's all going so well), but then the judge rules against them, it's going to be very difficult to overturn his ruling.

Remember, it's a non-jury trial, so he's the fact-finder. The appellate court won't re-examine his fact-finding, unless he makes a ruling that is totally unsupported by the factual record. That's unlikely. If there's evidence on both sides, he's pretty much on his own as to how much weight to give to each witness, etc. If there's anything in the record to support his ruling, his fact-finding will not be overturned.

In that case, the plaintiffs' only route on appeal would be to assert that he's made a major blunder on the Constitutional law. Which is precisely how this case will find its way to the Supreme Court. (Remember, you read it here first.)