Religious exemptions and trial delay

[Nathan Diament]

here's a radical suggestion:
while the court may have a compelling state interest in completing the
trial by receiving the jury's verdict, the same may not be said for
having the defendant -- who is willing to 'waive his right' to be
present in the courtroom when the verdict is received -- in the
courtroom to hear the verdict, why is that a compelling state interest?

N. Diament
U.O.J.C.A.

Volokh, Eugene wrote:

>
>
>         From O'Brien v. Rosemond, ___ N.Y.S. 2d ___ (App. Div. 2000);
> any thoughts?
>
>         "Contrary to the defendant's contention, his constitutional
> right to the free exercise of his religion was not violated.  The
> trial court properly delayed the defendant's observance of his Friday
> religious services to permit the jury, which was in its second day of
> deliberations, to continue deliberations and then announce its
> verdict.  The court had alegitimate and compelling State interest in
> completing the trial without further sequestration of the jury over
> the weekend (see, People v Williams, 197 A.D.2d 401)."
>
>         Any thoughts?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20000310/6f6c81ce/attachment.htm