Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Pollster1

Sorry. She doesn’t get to be an active part of the defense team in the original trial and then claim that her religious ‘faith’ won’t allow her to get on the witness stand and give honest answers to a few questions about whether the defendant had a vigorous defense.


11 posted on 03/01/2018 5:40:30 PM PST by CaptainMorgantown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: CaptainMorgantown
She doesn’t get to be an active part of the defense team in the original trial and then claim that her religious ‘faith’ won’t allow her to get on the witness stand and give honest answers to a few questions about whether the defendant had a vigorous defense.

I think she does. The defense was a public event in the courtroom, with a complete transcript retained. Her testimony has no unique value for this phase of the case. It takes an exceptional situation to override a constitutional right, and that burden is not met in this case. I don't see a conflict between actively working in court to prevent an execution and refusing to testify in the same court on the quality of the defense, not when that testimony would aid in deciding for the death penalty.

12 posted on 03/01/2018 5:49:25 PM PST by Pollster1 ("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson