Freakin' Really?

[rgrecar]

I have a story.

A Pagan woman gives testimony in a court case. When she is cross-examined the attorney starts by saying something to the effect of.

Now you know this is a court of law and we tell the truth here. You took an oath when you took the stand to tell the truth.
The woman agrees with that and the attorney goes on to say
I understand you are

Comments

[rgrecar]

Ha! That's great.

Thought of too late:
Actually I believe in many Gods so I'm way more covered than anyone in this room.

[kenllama]

fuckers! grar. (fortunately, i have an icon tailor made for pissed-off witchy purposes.)

was this you on the stand, or elsewho?

[rgrecar]

The case is still open so it was.... shall I say.... "my friend"

[qualistarian]

You have a problem with this happening to a Pagan. I have a problem with this being done by a lawyer & allowed by a judge.

Federal Rule of Evidence (of which every state has adopted to some extent) 610: "Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced."

If you know this woman personally, I recommend she contact her state bar association and find out the process for bringing a professional misconduct claim. It's incredibly unlikely to fly, but it's at least something and puts the guy on notice.

[rgrecar]

I thought about it, and I think the judge allowed it because it makes the other side look really really stupid. This is civil court and there's no jury. The magistrate will hear and decide himself. I think it was his curiosity to see where they were going with this. Cause it really does make them look stupid. They have nothing better to discredit "my friend's" story so they bring up that.

But I see your point. Bringing forth a claim is something she may think about but at the end of the day she just wants this whole thing to be over.

[aisb23]

Unfortunately (and I hate to say this) from a strictly legal gamesmanship point of view I can perfectly understand why the lawyer brought this up.

He is cross examining this woman and therefore wants to discredit her testimony in the mind of the jury. He may very well know what pagans do and don't believe, but that doesn't matter. He wants to sow doubt in the minds of the jurors. And since most Americans don't know anything about real pagans or their beliefs and don't want to. So by pointing out that this woman is not "normal" in her beliefs he hopes to minimize the effects of her testimony in the deliberations.

That all said, yep it's pretty damned repulsive.

[rgrecar]

No jury though. Check out my response above. Really it was just a bad move on the lawyer's part.

[aisb23]

(Checks other response)

Is this about what I think it's about? If so, please email or call with the details.

At any rate yeah it looks it was a pretty stupid move on the lawyer's part.

[rgrecar]

Yes it is. And really this is all I want to talk about. Nothing personal. Just no one is getting a lot of details. Just know everything is fine. It's just a long process, but the other side seems to take every opportunity to make themselves look like idiots. When there is some ruling I will let you know.