Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attorney asked by judge to remove Ash Wednesday observance
Iowa Independent ^ | 02/19/10 | Lynda Waddington

Posted on 02/20/2010 6:28:41 AM PST by Free Vulcan

A Marshall County Attorney in the midst of prosecuting an attempted murder case was asked by the court Wednesday to remove a smudge of ash from his forehead, a Catholic custom done in conjunction with the beginning of Lent.

Conservative writer Ken Black of the Marshalltown Times-Republican reports that Paul Crawford, an assistant county attorney, returned to the courtroom following a lunch break with the ash on his forehead. Catholics place the mark, which is often done in the shape of a cross, on their foreheads as a sign of repentance. The ash itself is often a by-product of the burning of palm crosses from the previous year, mixed lightly with holy water and sacred oils. Many recipients of the mark will wear it until it naturally wears off.

Prior to the jury returning, an attorney for the defense objected to the marking, and indicated that it could influence the jury in the case.

Judge Michael Moon agreed and requested the Crawford remove the smudge before the case proceeded. The attorney did so and the case moved forward without further discussion or incident.


TOPICS: Catholic; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: ashwednesday; christians; church; cross; iowa; law; ruling; state
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last
To: La Lydia

A head covering and ashes on the forehead are worlds apart, not necessarily the same thing.


81 posted on 02/20/2010 8:04:18 AM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

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.


82 posted on 02/20/2010 8:09:15 AM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: bboop
"The judge had no authority to ask him to remove it. Very dangerous precedence."

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.

83 posted on 02/20/2010 8:10:20 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

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.


84 posted on 02/20/2010 8:11:31 AM PST by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bboop
Oops, that should have read...

"..error when the trial court ordered LaRocca ..."

Sorry.

85 posted on 02/20/2010 8:12:32 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

“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.


86 posted on 02/20/2010 8:21:40 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
As has already been noted, ashes reflect the exact opposite of righteousness. Gotta do a little reading up there, fella.

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."

87 posted on 02/20/2010 8:22:39 AM PST by arturo ("A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." - G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: harpu
The priest or lay minister can say either of the two things while applying the ashes"
 
"Remember, man thou are dust and unto dust thou shalt return."
 
"Turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel."
 
These apply to anyone who is a sinner -- including this judge. 
So, do you see that he as well as you, also, might receive the ashes in a Catholic Church?

88 posted on 02/20/2010 8:23:23 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
Half the people at my office were wearing ashes on their foreheads Wednesday - the same exact people who hate Sarah Palin because she didn't abort her "defective" child.
89 posted on 02/20/2010 8:23:47 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65
...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.

Except in Rule 403, where the standard is "substantially outweighed." Not "absolutely" outweighed.

90 posted on 02/20/2010 8:24:26 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

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.


91 posted on 02/20/2010 8:24:41 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NoKoolAidforMe
How many times have we heard cases where a judge requested a Jew to remove his yarmulke in the courtroom because the opposing attorney objected?

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.

92 posted on 02/20/2010 8:30:21 AM PST by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

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?


93 posted on 02/20/2010 8:31:11 AM PST by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

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.


94 posted on 02/20/2010 8:40:11 AM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65
"They are never denied the right to observe the requirement to wear yarmulkes."

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.

95 posted on 02/20/2010 8:49:13 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl
I believe that the ashes would tell the jury that the wearer is Catholic. If there are any Catholics or any Christians in the jury, they may be convinced that his is the side of the angels. Alternately, some anti-Christians may be inclined to vote against his side simply because he has advertised his faith.

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.

96 posted on 02/20/2010 8:50:43 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: murron
"What if he had a crucifix around his neck that was clearly visible? Would the judge have asked him to remove it as well? "

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.

97 posted on 02/20/2010 8:52:53 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"The prosecutor, like any other citizen, has a First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of religion. "

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.

98 posted on 02/20/2010 8:54:37 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

Iowa, a very Protestant state? I dunno...it’s 23% Catholic...not exactly Mississippi.


99 posted on 02/20/2010 8:58:04 AM PST by B Knotts (Calvin Coolidge Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“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.”


100 posted on 02/20/2010 9:00:14 AM PST by Grunthor (The biggest issue for the past year has been health care and Mitt has been nowhere!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson