More on Nonjudgmental Jurors

Didn\\\'t Like ItLiked It (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

I blogged here about the exclusion from jury service of people who hold religious beliefs that prevent them from judging other people. I thought of it as a First Amendment problem and an Equal Protection problem under the U.S. Constitution. I haven’t given much thought to the Federal implications beyond Batson, Powers, and J.E.B., but it appears that there may be an even stronger argument under the Texas Constitution.

Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution provides:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

When a person is excluded from serving on a jury — so the argument would go — he is excluded from holding an office or public trust. When that exclusion is based on his religious sentiments, it violates Article 1, Section 4.

Further, Article 1, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution provides:

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

By barring people with certain religious beliefs (beliefs including the impropriety of people sitting in judgment over each other) from jury service, the law gives preference to those religious societies that do not hold these beliefs, in violation of Article 1, Section 6.

This is an issue that is ripe for litigation. The mere asking of the question, “do any of you have religious beliefs that forbid you from sitting in judgment” is arguably a religious test that violates Article 1, Section 4 and a preference that violates Article 1, Section 6. Object early and often.

One Response to “More on Nonjudgmental Jurors”

  1. on 28 Apr 2007 at 10:23 pmAnonymous

    Hey Lawyer Dood,

    I’m very interested in litigating this matter.

    Rickster

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

By submitting a comment here you give me permission to use your words in any way I like, including editing them for clarity, brevity, or content, as well as rearranging the words or the letters within them to change their very meaning. Those who engage in anonymous ad hominem attacks are the car-keyers of the internet, and will not be tolerated. If you engage in such attacks, I may edit the post to show your name or to make it appear that you are attacking yourself. Or both. I don't have to let you comment here. Don't do so for blatant marketing purposes; do so only to add to the discussion. Once you click "submit comment" you have given up all interest in your words to me, and have no further interest in your words. You agree never to sue, grieve, or complain to anyone about the use that I make of the letters you have typed. If you even threaten to do so, you agree that you will be held up to eternal public ridicule.