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.
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.