Atheists on Jury Duty in Alabma

[Douglas Laycock]

  Well, it's clearly unconstitutional, as you say.  Torcaso v.
Watkins (US 1961) says government can't require affirmation of belief
in God to be a notary public.  Jury member should be no different. 
And we have provided alternate forms of oath for religious objectors
since the 18th century.  Everyone gets to swear or affirm; the option
to affirm was written for Quakers, but it should be available for you
too. 

  But it might be very hard to set this up as a case a court could
decide.  Do you sue somebody for an injunction to make sure it doesn't
happen again?  Well, what are the odds you will be called again?  What
are the odds the next judge and the next pair of lawyers would react
the same way?  This seems like a pretty idiosyncratic event.  So you
might not be able to get an injunction.

  It might even be that Alabama law provides that jurors can affirm
instead of swear, and that this judge didn't know that or just ignored
it.  Or didn't think it applied to you.

  Do you sue for damages for not being on the jury?  What damages? 
Your time was given back to you.  Were you humiliated?  Suffer
emotional distress?  It has to be significant, not just a momentary
upset.  Maybe you could you sue for $1 in nominal damages as a way of
presenting the issue.  But the judge and the prosecutor are absolutely
immune from any suit for damages.  That leaves only the defense
lawyer, and he will claim that he should be immune too.  He's not even
a government actor.

  So there's a good chance that the court will never reach the merits
of your claim.

  If you use your own name, you have to be prepared for a terrific
amount of public abuse and hate mail; you will make yourself
notorious.  The court might let you sue as Jane Doe, and that usually
provides substantial protection, but people will try to figure out who
you are, and they may succeed.

  Quoting CAROL MOORE <alclegal at bellsouth.net>:

>
>
> I have been rejected as a juror, just this week, after having been
selected
> and seated because, when I approached the Circuit Court Judge about
my
> inability to say the oath with "so help me god" at the end of it,
he asked
> the prosecutor and defense attorney to vote on it (and this is
after opening
> arguments, mind you).  I stated my willingness to serve and to talk
an
> alternative oath.  The defense attorney refused, saying he could
not have a
> juror who did not believe in god (the case was drunk & disorderly,
resisting
> arrest).  I was removed (which, if one is actually looking for way
to duck
> jury duty, this one was easy).  My question to you all, besides
being an
> obvious violation the US Constitution, is this worth pursuing?
> Carol Moore, list reader
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw[1]
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>

Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

Links:
------
[1] 
/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Freligionlaw

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080424/639ce847/attachment.htm