I have been practicing criminal defense law for almost 49 years, and I am with the judge on this one. I insist and judges oblige when I ask that opposing counsel be asked to remove political pins and jewelry whenever I am with a jury. The article does not make clear if a jury was involved. If there is not a jury there I stiill find bringing politics or current issues into court offensive, and if the rules are not uniformly enforced, there is no problem with asking the judges to order others to remove political symbols too. The only âexceptionsâ I make is something denoting past military service, because I figured they earned it, and law enforcement wearing the black bands on their badges to mourns a recent death, as it has never been an issue for my cases (and those guys in the courtrooms where I am protect everyone), but I could see asking for that under the right circumstances. The courtroom is no place for political expression unrelated to the issue and immediate facts at hand. The First Amendmentâs protections and guarantees are always subject to time and place limitations.
What about a cross on a necklace? Is that also considered political jewelry?
if i donât understand whatâs really going on, how can i tell when somebody is trying to protect me from my own ignorance?
She didnât earn the right to wear that pin by being black and thus under systemic assault in this country, but the military gets an exemption because military?
It sounds as if the judge in this courtroom has not been enforcing the rules evenhandedly. Which would be unfortunate. Iâm also just a touch concerned about wanting to get rid of a BLM button. Would a button that said âPolice Officers Must Obey the Lawâ be barred from a courtroom as well? Pretty soon the american flag goes right our as a political statementâŚ
I donât think anyone needs to EARN the right to equal protection under the law. Wearing a pin denoting military service is something that is earned, but does that imply a special status under the law?
SoâŚby YOU determining âthey earned itâ and âblack bands on their badges to mourns a recent deathâ is just another courtesy you are actually PRETENDING that that isnât âpoliticalâ? THIS IS THE PROBLEM. NOTHING in the Constitution seems to matter when you couch your argument with âpoliceâ and/or military. THEN all rights go out the window because âthey FIGHT for YOUâ. The letter from the Police Union 'We are certain that the courts would not allow similar public displays â is so much passive aggressive BSâŚThey are trying to tell the judgeâŚâWE are the victims hereâŚâ even though they know the judge has ALREADY allowed âsimilar public displaysâ by figuring âthey earnedâ the right.
Iâll agree as long as it includes everyone. If there is an objection to BLM (Black Lives Matter) then there also should be an objection to BLM (Blue Lives Matter). Unfortunately the blue is given exceptions and if you object then you can expect to have payback in many forms, most often ârandomâ tickets, etc.
i donât necessarily agree with your rationale, but i understand the point youâre trying to make. just to clarify, nobody earns free speech - weâre entitled to it. and no one is entitled to a little more free speech than somebody else because they served for the military or mourning the death of someone in a certain line of work. when i was a reporter, i went round and round on courtroom first amendment issues with friends who work in the legal industry. i get the concern of influencing a jury, but the first amendment and a judgeâs responsibility to maintain courtroom decorum are not necessarily exclusive of each other. besides, if a t-shirt or a button can affect the outcome of a jurorâs vote, there are probably bigger problems at hand.
Iâm interested in seeing how this shakes out. The power of judges in their courtrooms is shocking to me sometimes. Forget the stories of judges literally getting into fist fights with lawyers or destroying peopleâs lives as a political expediency. Itâs the little things that blow my mind.
I have a female lawyer friend who never wears pant suits, always skirt suits. I live in Seattle, where you donât see a lot of ladies in skirts because itâs wet and cold a lot, and weâre a pant wearing lot, so I was a little surprised. She said itâs just habit because when she first started practicing, in Boston, the judge told her, âWomen wear skirts in my courtroom,â and made her leave court and change into a skirt before she could argue a case in front of himâŚ
That is actually a very fair question. I wonder how would Jury react when they see a defendant wearing an Islamic Cross(or any non-Christian emblem).
She may be right, but she is going to lose. The nearest thing to God on earth is a judge in his/her courtroom.
Probably his or her own lawyer would help the defendant match the juryâs tastes. I presume thatâs standard practice. Iâm wondering more about if the prosecuting attorney wears a cross on a necklace in a community thatâs predominantly white, christian, with a local jury. Isnât that a wink and a nod that âIâm one of youâ? What Iâm wondering is if a judge would be objective enough to see that or would consider it âjust normalâ. I suspect the latterâŚwhich raises the question of whether this is about âpolitical speechâ or is it really about enforcing the status quo.
Edit to add: If judges view their role as âenforcing the status quoâ, thatâs a problem.
So a black armband, military insignia, and a cross are âjust speechâ but a Black Lives Matter pin is âpolitical speech.â Got it.
I just wanted to pull this out - this doesnât apply just in the courtroom, folks.