# N.J. appeals court: Overtly religious people can be barred from juries **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781 "2003-01-15T17:53:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781/21 "2003-01-15T21:43:19Z")
Just to clear up some of the issues. The majority opinion basically held that the defendant’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause do not extend to the use of preemptory challenges to strike potential jurors on the basis of a general religous belief. They were pretty clear to draw a distinction between a general religousness and specific religious belief. In this case, the prosecution struck a minister and a Muslim, but did not strike either based on their specific religious beliefs. The appellate court felt that a general devout “religiousness” was not a legally cognizable group for the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause. The Court cited Peoplev. Gilmore which held: > [@](#): > > that in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled to trial by an impartial jury without discrimination on the basis of religious principles, race, color, ancestry, national origin, or sex , but did not find that the striking violated specific religious principles. The holding was that specific religious beliefs was not the basis for the exercise of the preemptory challenge. Which is one reason you should never rely on biased third persons account of what the court said. Here’s the quote that offended so many people in full: > [@](#): > > We do not accept defendant’s argument that people who are “demonstrative about their religions” constitute a cognizable group. As with the age-based group analysis, the boundaries of a religiously demonstrative group would be difficult or impossible to ascertain. Such a group cannot be defined by immutable characteristics, values or other criteria. Any effort to define such a group would be arbitrary. Individuals who are demonstrative about their religion do not share the same values, tenets or practices, and thus do not represent a cross-section of society. We conclude that M.S. was not challenged because of his membership in or affiliation with any cognizable group. His dismissal was not based on presumed group bias and was constitutionally proper. It wasn’t a slam on religion, etc, as some would like to believe, but an explanation on why they were not a cognizable group. FWIW, this area of the law is far from settled. As the concurring opinion stated: > [@](#): > > The question of the relationship, if any, between religion and peremptory strikes has occupied much legal attention in the wake of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) with differing results. . It may end up in SCOTUS sooner rather than later. Anyone who is really interested can read: 63 ALR 5th 375, Annotation, Use of Peremptory Challenges to Exclude Persons from Criminal Jury Based on Religious Affiliation–Post-Batson State Cases. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781/22 "2003-01-16T00:59:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\*People with strong beliefs do tend to allow them to skew their judgement. \*\* True enough. I work in the humanities in a State University, though, and IMO there are some people here with strong opinions (radical feminist theorists, etc) that skew their thinking in much the same way as fundamentalism does. So what are we going to do … exclude anyone with strong opinions? Yeah, those are the juries we want. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781/23 "2003-01-16T01:06:19Z")
Thanks for the clarifications. Although I would agree the opinion is poorly written. Don’t see the point of pre-emptory challenges at all. If you eliminate them from both sides, you don’t give either side the advantage, and “I bet the fat one would vote to acquit” never struck me as a good enough reason to get someone off a jury. Pick the first twelve without prejudice, and let the chips fall where they may. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781/24 "2003-01-16T12:26:55Z")
I don’t see, though, why there is the impression that people with religious convictions favor the defendant. It seems to me that certain religious fundamentalists would rather favor the prosecution. “Let’s rid the streets of all these unsavory sinner types of people.” ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781/25 "2003-01-16T12:53:15Z")
I don’t think anybody has a particularly compelling explanation for that rationale, Lib. ---
**Author:** ![BURNER](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@BURNER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BURNER)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781/26 "2003-01-16T13:07:12Z")
I can see the judges thinking about overtly religious people. THe bible says something about judge not lest ye be judged, the koran has a similar sentiment about how only Allah is fit to judge anyone. How can people who truly believe this stuff sit on a jury? Being on a jury and passing a judgement on someones guilt is in direct opposition with these beliefs. Then there are capitol cases where the death penalty is involved. Just about every major religion has something to say about not killing. How can people who believe that ever sentance somene to the death penalty? Then there is the real zealots like Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and Fred Phelps. Do you realy want people who can blame atrocities on “Godlessness,gays and lesbians” sitting on a jury in the first place? I dont see how having such a narrow world view could make them impartial to the facts. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781/27 "2003-01-16T16:52:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BURNER \* > \*\*…How can people who truly believe this stuff sit on a jury? \*\* I think somewhere Jesus said not to swear oaths either, which makes me wonder why (used to?) have people swear on the bible. Kinda ironic. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781/28 "2003-01-16T17:56:14Z")
I guess libertarianism counts, too. I was recused (if that’s the right word) from a jury once when I was asked whether I thought I could render a fair and impartial verdict in a seatbelt case. I answered that so long as the lady is peaceful and honest, she ought to be free to pursue her own happiness in her own way. There was some discussion amongst the legal pubahs, and the judge asked me what that meant, and I said it meant that a law requiring someone to wear a seatbelt is unethical in its conception. He told me I could go home. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781/29 "2003-01-16T17:58:05Z")
> [@](#): > > I can see the judges thinking about overtly religious people. THe bible says something about judge not lest ye be judged, the koran has a similar sentiment about how only Allah is fit to judge anyone. How can people who truly believe this stuff sit on a jury? Being on a jury and passing a judgement on someones guilt is in direct opposition with these beliefs. Then there are capitol cases where the death penalty is involved. Just about every major religion has something to say about not killing. How can people who believe that ever sentance somene to the death penalty? Then there is the real zealots like Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and Fred Phelps. Do you realy want people who can blame atrocities on “Godlessness,gays and lesbians” sitting on a jury in the first place? I dont see how having such a narrow world view could make them impartial to the facts. Nice generalization, **Burner**! But you do raise an interesting point: would it be improper to question veniremen as to their religious views, and on receiving an affirmative answer, ask something along the lines, “Would your religious views tend to bias you towards one side or the other as regards the case for which you’re on the jury panel?” Thanks to **Minty, Bricker** , and **Hamlet** for discussions of the law underlying the question. Would any of you care to address the Constitutional point that **Shodan** made? Or is jury service not considered an “office or public trust”? Or is this one of the things applicable only to the national government and not to the states? (I’d object to that last stance, myself.) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781/30 "2003-01-16T19:27:33Z")
I am unaware of whether the religious tests clause has been incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment, although I would assume that you get to the same result via the 1st Amendment anyway. Nor am I aware of anything that says whether being a juror is “an Office or public Trust.” I doubt it, however, given that the clause expressly applies to members of the three branches of government: > [@](#): > > The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Might have been interesting if the defendant had raised that argument–which, of course, he did not. Also, Burner, it was not the task of the judges to evaluate whether the prosecutor’s rationale made any sense. All they had to do was determine whether the prosecutor had a reason _other_ than race for striking the black guy. Doesn’t have to be a good reason, just _a_ reason. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781/31 "2003-01-16T19:31:31Z")
> [@](#): > > I am unaware of whether the religious tests clause has been incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment Please ignore that. Upon a moment’s reflection, it was an incredibly stupid thing to say, as the clause explicitly applies to state legislators, executive officials, and judges. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781/32 "2003-01-16T20:25:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*Would any of you care to address the Constitutional point that **Shodan** made? Or is jury service not considered an “office or public trust”? Or is this one of the things applicable only to the national government and not to the states? (I’d object to that last stance, myself.) \*\* As **minty** pointed out, Article 6 c. 3 applies to most all office holders, regardless of federal or state. And the easy response is no, jury service is not an “office or public trust,” so it is inapplicable to the issue presented in this thread. As an interesting sidenote, a while ago some litigants in an abortion case asked that a judge be recused from hearing the case because of his being a practicing Catholic. The judge refused to recuse himself, in part relying on this Article. I know it’s not relevant, but interesting nonetheless. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-j-appeals-court-overtly-religious-people-can-be-barred-from-juries/148781.md?page=1)