My strange-bedfellow friend Joe Murray works for a law firm in Tupelo, Mississippi. Those of you who listened to my week long Sirius satellite radio broadcasts sitting in for the vacationing Michelangelo Signorile know Joe as the former lawyer for the American Family Association who I interviewed a few times.
Not to get too sidetracked here, but on first chatting with Joe a few years back, I always had the sense he was a decent fellow inside (not a feeling I usually get from religious right types). Since that time, Joe and I have had LOTS of debates about gay rights and other issues, off-the-record and on-the-record, and he's not at all what you might expect from someone who used to work for the AFA. I'm not just talking about him "seeming to be a nice guy," I'm talking about his actual views on issues being much better than you might expect considering his AFA past. I think Joe's current views on many an issue would surprise many of you. Anyway....
Joe's firm is working on a case where they represent a city employee who claims he was fired from his job because a supervisor disapproved of his dating a white woman (I'm going to assume the man is black, though the article doesn't say). Attorneys for the city want the judge to limit what the man's lawyer can say in his opening and closing statements. To wit, they want the judge to tell the man's lawyer (Joe's boss) that he can't mention God, Jesus or the Bible in his opening or closing statements.
Here's what the local paper had to say:
Charles Flemons' racial discrimination lawsuit isn't set for trial in U.S. District Court in Oxford until August, but attorneys for the city already are seeking to limit Waide's comments.I have to admit, the city's position bothers me. First off, let me say, yes I'm a lawyer, in that I have a law degree, but I don't know the specific law pertaining to this case, so maybe - maybe - the city is correct legally in what they're arguing. But I don't think so.
"In previous trials, while addressing the jury, plaintiff's counsel has inserted prejudicial and inflammatory comments suggesting to the jury that their decision should be guided on the basis of religious belief or bias," attorney Mark Fijman said in a motion.
"For example, plaintiff's attorney previously has told jurors in closing to essentially do what Jesus would do."
Waide said it's important to be able to tell a jury what you believe.
"You talk about more than the evidence," Waide said.
Waide said he frequently reminds the jury about the teachings of Jesus in race discrimination cases.
I remember from law school that closing arguments, at the very least, are given a hell of a lot of leeway by the judge - you can say almost anything. And it's just not clear to me why invoking God or the Bible or Jesus is any big deal, especially since you can use God, the Bible and Jesus any way you want - it's not like either side in the trial has a monopoly on God references. You can just as easily say "would Jesus convict someone if there were a doubt in his mind?"
I get on the religious right's case with all of their war on Christmas bull, I think they've just gone too far with their persecution complex. But that doesn't mean that sometimes they're not right (even a broken clock is right twice a day). In this case, whether you like religion or not, I just don't see the problem with a lawyer invoking God or the Bible in a closing argument, especially when he's doing it on a civil rights case in favor of fairness.
Though, having said that, my argument could backfire. What if the city's lawyer wanted to argue that the Bible makes clear that blacks shouldn't have the same rights as whites, and that blacks shouldn't date whites? (Once upon a time, that was the thinking.) Would that be okay, legally or otherwise? Or if the lawyer tried to bias the jury in an anti-gay discrimination case by saying "sure the law says you can't fire the gay guy, but let's face it, the Bible says he's an abomination" - would that be okay? In both those cases, I'd obviously have a problem with the lawyer's arguments.
Ok, so now I'm confused. And the best legal cases tend to leave you a bit confused, I've found. There's often a lot of gray.
So what do you guys think? And is anyone up on the actual law governing this?
