Skip to comments.Attorney asked by judge to remove Ash Wednesday observance
Posted on 02/20/2010 6:28:41 AM PST by Free Vulcan
A Marshall County Attorney in the midst of prosecuting an attempted murder case was asked by the court Wednesday to remove a smudge of ash from his forehead, a Catholic custom done in conjunction with the beginning of Lent.
Conservative writer Ken Black of the Marshalltown Times-Republican reports that Paul Crawford, an assistant county attorney, returned to the courtroom following a lunch break with the ash on his forehead. Catholics place the mark, which is often done in the shape of a cross, on their foreheads as a sign of repentance. The ash itself is often a by-product of the burning of palm crosses from the previous year, mixed lightly with holy water and sacred oils. Many recipients of the mark will wear it until it naturally wears off.
Prior to the jury returning, an attorney for the defense objected to the marking, and indicated that it could influence the jury in the case.
Judge Michael Moon agreed and requested the Crawford remove the smudge before the case proceeded. The attorney did so and the case moved forward without further discussion or incident.
‘Paul Crawford’. a Catholic without conviction. UnF’n believable.< /s>
What’s to discuss? It’s prejudicial. The only way it wouldn’t be is if everyone in the court had ash on their foreheads.
He could have wiped it off himself without any prompting but this is a matter of religion and the judge had no authority to ask him to take it off.
So you believe that Muslim women should and could be asked to remove their head coverings in a courtroom setting because they are prejudicial?
However, Ali Baba can do as he pleases!
Yea,I wonder what would happened to da judge if it was a yar
mulke or turban?
What? Are you kidding?
But burkhas are ok.
Was the case about religion? How is the display of ashes prejudicial in a criminal or civil case NOT involving religion?
Matthew 6:1 - “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.”
Prior to the jury returning, an attorney for the defense objected to the marking, and indicated that it could influence the jury in the case. ... Judge Michael Moon agreed and requested the Crawford remove the smudge before the case proceeded*** For discussion. ***
Nah. I don't think I'll 'discuss' this. As if I follow the (cough) 'logical' progression of thought where this could (blank) lead, it just may get me banned.
And Saturdays are never a good day to get the zot. Plus it's Lent so I'm tryin' real hard to be nice.
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with the phrase “...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...”
I'd really like you to lay out the logic behind your statement.
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
How many times have we heard cases where a judge requested a jew to remove his yarmulke in the courtroom because the opposing attorney objected?
It’s bias, the judge was wrong, and the attorney was a coward to removing the ashes.
see my #17
Ashes on one's forehead are hardly a mark of "righteousness" - they are a public admission that one is a sinner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.