Posted on 02/20/2010 6:28:41 AM PST by Free Vulcan
A head covering and ashes on the forehead are worlds apart, not necessarily the same thing.
Proving that a display of ashes endangers a fair trial would be the point here , or, at the very least, clearly inferring such, before a claim of compelling state interest can be established. Again, the judge absolutely abridged the attorney’s First Amendment right on the basis that practicing his Faith somehow in some yet to be determined manner MAY have adversely affected the trial. MAY does not trump ABSOLUTE.
There have been dozens and dozens of cases where trial courts were found to not be in error when the Court instructed a witness, a defendant, a plaintiff or a lawyer to remove religious or political adornments. This particular case is hardly precedential in this regard.
See LaRocca v. Gold, a decision from the early '80s in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that it was not reversible error when the court ordered LaRocca (a Catholic priest who was also a practicing attorney) to remove his collar when he represented his client in court.
This is stupid. If the attorney had gone out and played in dirt and come back with a smudge of dirt on his forehead, nothing would have happened.
However, it happened on Ash Wednesday, so the smudge was recognized as a Catholic symbol, and someone realized that he could make a case out of the ash smudge and make everybody focus on the fact that the attorney was Catholic, and hopefully change some of the jurors’ perception of him.
"..error when the trial court ordered LaRocca ..."
Sorry.
“Reject me in front of men and I will reject you in front of my Father.”
The judge is wrong and the attorney is right.
Having been raised Roman Catholic, I am quite familiar with the spin put on the the practice. If something is in direct contradiction to what Jesus taught, do you think it really cuts any ice with Him if we say, "Well, you gotta understand Lord, this is what it represents."
Except in Rule 403, where the standard is "substantially outweighed." Not "absolutely" outweighed.
And they very well could have. Many non Catholics flock to Catholic Churches on Ash Wednesday to receive the ashes on their forehead.
It only signifies that one is a sinner. — See what the priest says above.
I don't know about "opposing attorney", but judges frequently request Jews remove skullcaps in courtrooms. There is usually no real objection to this from the standpoint of Jewish religious law.
I believe most observant Jews who are trial lawyers do remove skullcaps whenever in court.
What if he had a crucifix around his neck that was clearly visible? Would the judge have asked him to remove it as well? Would the ashes on his forehead have been an issue thirty years ago?
403 is Federal not Iowa and the term substantially is as high a standard as compelling. I did not adequately express the meaning of absolute. It was not in reference to the potential for predjudice but in terms of two rights in coonflict. There may, in some undetermined manner been an effect on the trial, but there was an absolute denial of a Catholic’s right to freely practice his Faith. You cannot absolutely deny a right because to practice it MAY have some effect on another right. I return to the point of observant Jews in court. They are never denied the right to observe the requirement to wear yarmulkes. That is as much a symbol as ashes are for a Catholic.
That's not accurate. Just like in cases of hajibs, Crucifixes or crosses, there are dozens of cases wear judges have instructed either witnesses or attorneys to remove yarmulkes. These instructions, to my knowledge, have never been found to be reversible error by appellate courts.
The fact of the matter is that the trial judge has historical been given tremendous latitude when setting standards for dress in his/her courtroom. Appellate courts have been hesitant, even unwilling, to question the primacy of the trial judge's discretion in these matters.
If the trial judge believes that such adornment may be prejudicial in some way for the particular case he's adjudicating, the appellate court has typically acquiesced to the trial court's judgment.
The prosecutor works in a county where Catholics are a decided minority and where non-Catholic Christians, like some of the individuals on this thread, might not like the fact that he is a Catholic.
If anything, the prosecutor was hurting himself in the eyes of a prejudiced jury.
However, our judicial system presumes that jurors resolve to put aside their personal prejudices and deliberate on the facts.
The prosecutor, like any other citizen, has a First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of religion.
Yes. I went to law school almost 30 years ago, and there was certainly precedent for such decision even back then. Again, see the LoRacca cases from New York during the mid-70s. LaRacca (sp?) was a priest who was a practicing defense attorney who filed a number of civil suits and appeals because the trial judge forced him to remove his Roman Collar. None of those appeals prevailed.
Not while in Court (and in some instances, even out of court), he doesn't. There are plenty of things that an attorney can say that can get him fined or jailed for contempt, or even disbarred.
Iowa, a very Protestant state? I dunno...it’s 23% Catholic...not exactly Mississippi.
“they are a public admission that one is a sinner.”
“Catholics place the mark, which is often done in the shape of a cross, on their foreheads as a sign of repentance.”
Two questions;
Is it a sign of repentance or not?
What do you believe is the meaning of “God and sin no more.”
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.