On The Front Lines
Rutherford Institute Attorneys File Brief with New Jersey Supreme Court on Behalf of Religious Jurors
Attorneys Claim Prosecutors Discriminated Against Overly Religious JurorsTRENTON, N.J.-- Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court of New Jersey on behalf of the rights of religious jurors. In seeking to intervene in a case where a prosecutor was allowed to dismiss prospective jurors because he perceived them to be "demonstrably religious," Institute attorneys argue that the prosecutor's reasons for dismissing the jurors violates their Equal Protection rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Pointing out that most state constitutions and statutes preclude jurors from being discriminated against and dismissed because of their religious beliefs, Institute attorneys have asked the state high court to reverse a decision allowing prosecutors to eliminate jurors based on their religious beliefs.
The issue arose when the prosecutor in the 1999 criminal robbery trial of Lloyd Fuller used two of his peremptory strikes to eliminate prospective jurors because he perceived them to be "demonstrably religious." Peremptory challenges, a statutory right afforded to both sides in a criminal case, provide attorneys with the opportunity to exclude a certain number of potential jurors. Attorneys are not allowed to exclude jurors based on gender, race or religion. Furthermore, attorneys are not allowed to question jurors about their religious beliefs unless it would be crucial to the legal issue at hand. In explaining the rationale behind his actions, the prosecutor stated that it was his experience that people who tended to be demonstrative about their religion tend to favor defendants. He also stated that devoutly religious persons tend to be more forgiving and "perhaps wouldn't listen to the testimony as closely" as another. The first juror in question was dismissed because he and his wife were missionaries; the second juror was dismissed because his dress and last named suggested he was a Muslim. However, neither juror was actually questioned about his religious beliefs.
"Assuming that someone will judge a case one way or another because of their religious beliefs is discriminatory and demeaning," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Every juror should be afforded the same consideration for their ability to reason and process the facts offered, regardless of their religion or 'perceived' religion."
The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.
Press Contact
Nisha N. MohammedPh: (434) 978-3888, ext. 604; Pager: 800-946-4646, Pin #: 1478257
Email: Nisha N. Mohammed
