Posted on 03/01/2018 5:00:32 PM PST by BackRoads775
“I feel like I’m having to choose between you and God.” That’s what Greta Lindecrantz, a 67-year-old Mennonite, told an Arapahoe County, Colo., district judge on Wednesday after she ordered her to testify for the prosecution in a death-penalty case — or remain in jail for contempt of court. Lindecrantz had been behind bars since Monday. As she spoke, wearing a jail jumpsuit and shackles on her arms, supportive Mennonites sang hymns outside the courtroom, according to the Daily Journal. “This is now me telling you directly … and I’m ordering you to answer the questions,”
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
She must have some qualms about lying under oath.
I wish judges were more learned in the constitution...
but the liberal ones are more schooled in social activism than in protecting individual rights.
I hate yahoo news...
Here is a link to the story from The Denver Post from Feb. 27th:
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/27/investigator-jailed-robert-ray-death-penalty-hearing/
Bless this woman for standing with her faith.
https://themennonite.org/feature/early-challenges-capital-punishment/
It’s a valid mainstream belief in her faith. While I disagree with her belief, the judge was wrong to demand that she testify - completely ignoring her First Amendment immunity. This judge should be shamed, and if that does not bring him around he should be shunned by all who respect the counsel of elders.
The Mennonnites are a Anabaptist group out of Germany that are Biblical Pacifists an are opposed to the death penalty . They have been around since the 1500’s. I suspect she will stick to her guns she does not want to be responsible for someone to be put to death on her testimony.The groups is based on the writtings of Menno Simmons.
I wouldn’t assume that
She is part of a church that doesn’t believe in the death penalty
Precisely
If she was an innocent bystander, who was drawn into the case as a witness through no fault of her own, I would have some respect for her stance.
However, she had no problem participating fully in the legal process as an investigator for the defense team in the original trial, trying to help a defendant who had murdered witnesses evade justice.
Now that the he’s been convicted of murder and appealing on the bogus grounds of ‘inadequate defense’, it suddenly offends her poor conscience to participate in legal proceedings. Another liberal with a selective sense of morality that always finds a rationale for siding with evil.
Let her rot in jail for as long as the law allows.
Sorry. She doesn’t get to be an active part of the defense team in the original trial and then claim that her religious ‘faith’ won’t allow her to get on the witness stand and give honest answers to a few questions about whether the defendant had a vigorous defense.
I think she does. The defense was a public event in the courtroom, with a complete transcript retained. Her testimony has no unique value for this phase of the case. It takes an exceptional situation to override a constitutional right, and that burden is not met in this case. I don't see a conflict between actively working in court to prevent an execution and refusing to testify in the same court on the quality of the defense, not when that testimony would aid in deciding for the death penalty.
She actively sought out and chose to involve herself in the case, and now refuses to follow the rules of the legal system when those rules might lead to an outcome different than she desires.
If she elected to be on the witness list for the first trial, then she gave up the right to not be a participant. Witnesses don’t get to pick and choose to answer only the questions that will help their favored side.
“...Let her rot in jail for as long as the law allows.”
**************************************************
Well, aren’t you an understanding sweetheart.
“I hate Yahoo news”
And if you’re on Freerepublic, you can believe that they hate you too.
She isn’t being asked to impose the death penalty, merely to tell the truth. Facts are facts. The consequences of those facts aren’t her responsibility.
Testifying can lead to death.... it is her belief system not mine
IANAL but I have to disagree — I’d expect her transcribed testimony to be the basis for questions on her participation in the original defense. Her answers to those questions are new and unique information that only she can provide. Her answers would bear directly on the claim of an inadequate defense.
They don’t dress like Mennonites. While I understand many don’t go for the traditional garb I would have thought they would have dressed a lot planer then red jackets and plaid shirts. Also do what was with the women in the roman collar.
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.