Latest news with #MassachusettsSupremeCourt
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - What happens when religious freedom clashes with personal protections in court?
On May 7, a devout Muslim was called to give testimony in her ex-boyfriend's criminal case. He was charged with assaulting her and with domestic violence. What would have been a tragic but routine moment in the justice system took an unexpected twist when the defense asked the judge to order the victim to remove her niqab, the religious attire that completely veils the face except for the area around the eyes. Some Muslim women wear it in places where they may encounter men who are not members of their family. The defense argued that allowing the victim to testify in her niqab would violate their client's constitutional right to confront their accuser and deny the jury critical demeanor evidence to help them assess her credibility. It was a smart tactic, one used in many different cases, to put the victim in the difficult position of having to choose between her religious convictions and her desire for justice. If she refused to testify, it would have led to a dismissal of the case. While governments often resist claims for religious accommodations, in this case, the prosecution argued that forcing the woman to remove her niqab would violate her right to practice her religion. Today, the banner of religious freedom is being raised all over the country, encouraged by a Supreme Court that has given priority to religious values even when they conflict with other constitutional norms. In each case, religious liberty must be balanced against other values. That means that the front lines in the battle over religion and its place in society will be continually shifting and, however those battles come out, each skirmish will fuel culture wars. That is why the Boston case made headlines. The battle was joined when Boston Municipal Court Judge Kenneth Fiandaca ruled that the alleged victim could only testify if she removed her niqab. His ruling was, however, quickly appealed and reversed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Traditionally, religious liberty has been seen as a kind of private right. The government should not tell people whether, when or how to worship. The philosopher John Locke, who influenced the Framers, wrote that 'The care of each man's soul' should not be part of the 'mutual compacts' that create a government of free people. No one, Locke added, 'ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth, because of his religion.' In this understanding of religious liberty, people are free to go to the house of worship of their choice, but religion is not to be brought into the workplace or the 'public square.' This conception of freedom of religion requires tolerance. And it minimizes conflict between religion and other values of the kind seen in the Massachusetts case. In our era, another conception of religious liberty has come to prominence. In this view, confining religious practice to the private realm is seen as favoring an impoverished kind of religion. For people who hold this view, religion is seen as an indispensable part of a person's entire life, not just what someone does in their church, synagogue or mosque. This conception has been exemplified in cases such as that of the Colorado baker sanctioned by the state for refusing, on religious grounds, to make a wedding cake that celebrates a same-sex wedding. Another involved a religious order of nuns that did not want to cover contraception in the health insurance they provided for employees of their group homes for children. Inevitably, those practices run up against competing rights-claims. Those conflicts are often framed as involving a choice between different ways of life, religious and secular. Not surprisingly, they become the stuff of intense legal and political debate. For example, speaking to the Federalist Society in November 2020, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a longtime proponent of enhanced freedom of religion, observed that 'religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.' In Alito's view, too many Americans do not cherish that liberty or regard it as 'just an excuse for bigotry.' On the other side, as political scientist Michael Bobic argues, 'When Congress or state governments try to accommodate the sincere religious beliefs of citizens, they risk violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.' This brings us back to the Massachusetts case. The trial judge's initial ruling was not surprising, but it was wrong. There are many ways to assess witness credibility, and a long line of cases have held that the right to confront one's accuser is, as Justice Serge Georges of the state Supreme Judicial Court explained, 'not absolute.' Courts, he said, 'have recognized limited and exceptional circumstances in which a defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment … may appropriately yield to competing constitutional interests.' Georges directed the lower court to consider whether the religious convictions of the witness are sincere and prohibit her 'from displaying her face to males.' If so, Georges concluded, the 'right to confrontation … including any 'face to face' component, must yield to the witness's First Amendment rights.' This ruling meant that a Muslim woman could testify in her niqab, rightly vindicating the claims of religious liberty. But, at the end of the day, the jury was not persuaded by her testimony and found the defendant not guilty. Also, we are no closer to healing the deep divides over those claims. Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
What happens when religious freedom clashes with personal protections in court?
On May 7, a devout Muslim was called to give testimony in her ex-boyfriend's criminal case. He was charged with assaulting her and with domestic violence. What would have been a tragic but routine moment in the justice system took an unexpected twist when the defense asked the judge to order the victim to remove her niqab, the religious attire that completely veils the face except for the area around the eyes. Some Muslim women wear it in places where they may encounter men who are not members of their family. The defense argued that allowing the victim to testify in her niqab would violate their client's constitutional right to confront their accuser and deny the jury critical demeanor evidence to help them assess her credibility. It was a smart tactic, one used in many different cases, to put the victim in the difficult position of having to choose between her religious convictions and her desire for justice. If she refused to testify, it would have led to a dismissal of the case. While governments often resist claims for religious accommodations, in this case, the prosecution argued that forcing the woman to remove her niqab would violate her right to practice her religion. Today, the banner of religious freedom is being raised all over the country, encouraged by a Supreme Court that has given priority to religious values even when they conflict with other constitutional norms. In each case, religious liberty must be balanced against other values. That means that the front lines in the battle over religion and its place in society will be continually shifting and, however those battles come out, each skirmish will fuel culture wars. That is why the Boston case made headlines. The battle was joined when Boston Municipal Court Judge Kenneth Fiandaca ruled that the alleged victim could only testify if she removed her niqab. His ruling was, however, quickly appealed and reversed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Traditionally, religious liberty has been seen as a kind of private right. The government should not tell people whether, when or how to worship. The philosopher John Locke, who influenced the Framers, wrote that 'The care of each man's soul' should not be part of the 'mutual compacts' that create a government of free people. No one, Locke added, 'ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth, because of his religion.' In this understanding of religious liberty, people are free to go to the house of worship of their choice, but religion is not to be brought into the workplace or the 'public square.' This conception of freedom of religion requires tolerance. And it minimizes conflict between religion and other values of the kind seen in the Massachusetts case. In our era, another conception of religious liberty has come to prominence. In this view, confining religious practice to the private realm is seen as favoring an impoverished kind of religion. For people who hold this view, religion is seen as an indispensable part of a person's entire life, not just what someone does in their church, synagogue or mosque. This conception has been exemplified in cases such as that of the Colorado baker sanctioned by the state for refusing, on religious grounds, to make a wedding cake that celebrates a same-sex wedding. Another involved a religious order of nuns that did not want to cover contraception in the health insurance they provided for employees of their group homes for children. Inevitably, those practices run up against competing rights-claims. Those conflicts are often framed as involving a choice between different ways of life, religious and secular. Not surprisingly, they become the stuff of intense legal and political debate. For example, speaking to the Federalist Society in November 2020, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a longtime proponent of enhanced freedom of religion, observed that 'religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.' In Alito's view, too many Americans do not cherish that liberty or regard it as 'just an excuse for bigotry.' On the other side, as political scientist Michael Bobic argues, 'When Congress or state governments try to accommodate the sincere religious beliefs of citizens, they risk violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.' This brings us back to the Massachusetts case. The trial judge's initial ruling was not surprising, but it was wrong. There are many ways to assess witness credibility, and a long line of cases have held that the right to confront one's accuser is, as Justice Serge Georges of the state Supreme Judicial Court explained, 'not absolute.' Courts, he said, 'have recognized limited and exceptional circumstances in which a defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment … may appropriately yield to competing constitutional interests.' Georges directed the lower court to consider whether the religious convictions of the witness are sincere and prohibit her 'from displaying her face to males.' If so, Georges concluded, the 'right to confrontation … including any 'face to face' component, must yield to the witness's First Amendment rights.' This ruling meant that a Muslim woman could testify in her niqab, rightly vindicating the claims of religious liberty. But, at the end of the day, the jury was not persuaded by her testimony and found the defendant not guilty. Also, we are no closer to healing the deep divides over those claims. Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Yahoo
"Do your worst": Here's what Karen Read said in her post-Super Bowl TV interview
Ahead of her trial in less than two months, Karen Read is continuing to speak out about the case. Last year, the high-profile case ended in a mistrial, and Read has continued to assert her innocence in several media interviews, including an extended profile with Vanity Fair. The latest development with the Read case was that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Read, a Mansfield woman accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend, Braintree native John O'Keefe, can be retried on all three charges, including second-degree murder, following a mistrial in July. Read's defense team was seeking to have charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a crash causing injury or death thrown out after they say jurors reached a unanimous decision to acquit her on those counts. Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone sided with the prosecution in a decision in August, prompting the defense to appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. Read's second trial is scheduled to begin April 1. In her latest interview, she said she's not afraid of taking the stand in her second trial, something she did not do during the first one. Following the Super Bowl, Boston 25 News' Ted Daniel held an interview with Read and her lawyer Alan Jackson where Read disclosed some of her thoughts on the case. When asked what is the one piece of evidence that proves her innocence, Read said that O'Keefe's body was a clear indicator that she did not back into him with her vehicle and kill her former partner. "No bruise, 6,000-pound, full-size SUV, not a bruise on his body," Read said. "Not a fracture below his head." When asked by Daniel who are the people who did kill O'Keefe, if not Read, Jackson said that they don't know and it's not up to the defense to know. "Somebody other than Karen, somebody other than Karen is responsible for that, for the killing of John," Jackson said. Karen Read case: Defense expert was paid $12K for unfruitful analysis. Who the judge says must pay the bill Read said that she knows that the legacy of this trial will most likely define her entire life and that she has made peace with that. Read said that she felt gutted after the mistrial was announced but has reflected and sees it as an opportunity to prepare for the next trial. "I'm not afraid of taking the stand," Read told Boston 25 "I don't care who I face. I have the truth. I have the best attorneys. Do your worst." Jessica Trufant contributed to this report. This article originally appeared on The Patriot Ledger: Karen Read says she's 'not afraid of taking the stand' in TV interview
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Yahoo
Karen Read loses double jeopardy appeal in Boston cop slaying case, will receive new trial
The Massachusetts woman accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend in a snowy collision has lost her Massachusetts Supreme Court appeal seeking to have her case tossed on the grounds of double jeopardy after a chaotic murder trial ended in a hung jury. Karen Read, 45, is expected to go on trial for the second time as previously scheduled in April on charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly accident. Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe died from blunt force trauma to the head and hypothermia during a January snowstorm in Canton, Massachusetts, about 15 miles outside Beantown. Prosecutors say Read hit him with her SUV and fled the scene after a drunken fight. She claimed it was an elaborate cover-up and that she had left before he suffered any injuries. Jurors couldn't reach an agreement on which side to believe. After a lower court denied her motion to dismiss following the mistrial, she appealed to the state's highest court, which handed down a decision Tuesday rejecting her argument that jurors only deadlocked on one of the three charges. She wanted the remaining two thrown out. Watch Karen Read: Killer Or Convenient Outsider? "The jury clearly stated during deliberations that they had not reached a unanimous verdict on any of the charges and could not do so," Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote in the court's 35-page decision. Read On The Fox News App Jurors told the judge in a series of notes that they were "deeply divided" over Read's guilt of murder and other charges and could not reach an agreement. "Only after being discharged did some individual jurors communicate a different supposed outcome, contradicting their prior notes," Georges wrote. Karen Read Mistrial Puts Cops In Tough Spot, Opens Door For Accused Killer Of Boyfriend Officer To Walk Free Because the jurors broke their silence only after the trial, it was too late, the court ruled. "Such posttrial disclosures cannot retroactively alter the trial's outcome -- either to acquit or to convict," Georges wrote. "Accordingly, we affirm the trial judge's denial of the motion to dismiss and the defendant's request for a posttrial juror inquiry." SIGN UP TO GET True Crime Newsletter Read's new trial is expected to be led by a special assistant prosecutor, Hank Brennan, who once represented the mobster James "Whitey" Bulger and has already begun trying to obtain unpublished records from Massachusetts reporters who have interviewed Read. Read the court's decision Watch: Dashcam From The Night John O'keefe Was Found Dead "I don't see how that was going to fly, because it was a mistrial, she wasn't found guilty or not guilty," said Paul Mauro, a former NYPD inspector and attorney. "Double jeopardy applies when you have a verdict. It's in the Constitution." Follow The Fox True Crime Team On X "This is settled law," he added. "This is not double jeopardy, I agree with the court. Let's get to a new trial and resolve this." The new trial is scheduled to begin on April 1. She is also facing a wrongful death lawsuit from O'Keefe's family. Read, in a recent round of interviews, argued that she was framed by the real killers, whom she believes are other members of law enforcement O'Keefe got into a fight with after she dropped him off at the home of fellow Boston Police Officer Brian Albert. O'Keefe was found dead in the snow on Albert's front lawn. Get The Latest From The Fox News True Crime Hub Testimony from Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor, one of the key investigators, severely hurt prosecutors in court. Jurors were seen shaking their heads in court as Read's defense team read some of his text messages. In them, he called Read a "wack job," a "babe … with no a--" and a "c---." He wrote that he wished she would kill herself and joked about looking for nude selfies while searching her article source: Karen Read loses double jeopardy appeal in Boston cop slaying case, will receive new trial
Fox News
11-02-2025
- Fox News
Karen Read loses double jeopardy appeal in Boston cop slaying case, will receive new trial
The Massachusetts woman accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend in a snowy collision has lost her Massachusetts Supreme Court appeal seeking to have her case tossed on the grounds of double jeopardy after a chaotic murder trial ended in a hung jury. Karen Read, 45, is expected to go on trial for the second time as previously scheduled in April on charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly accident. Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe died from blunt force trauma to the head and hypothermia during a January snowstorm in Canton, Massachusetts, about 15 miles outside Beantown. Prosecutors say Read hit him with her SUV and fled the scene after a drunken fight. She claimed it was an elaborate cover-up and that she had left before he suffered any injuries. Jurors couldn't reach an agreement on which side to believe. After a lower court denied her motion to dismiss following the mistrial, she appealed to the state's highest court, which handed down a decision Tuesday rejecting her argument that jurors only deadlocked on one of the three charges. She wanted the remaining two thrown out. "The jury clearly stated during deliberations that they had not reached a unanimous verdict on any of the charges and could not do so," Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote in the court's 35-page decision. Jurors told the judge in a series of notes that they were "deeply divided" over Read's guilt of murder and other charges and could not reach an agreement. "Only after being discharged did some individual jurors communicate a different supposed outcome, contradicting their prior notes," Georges wrote. Because the jurors broke their silence only after the trial, it was too late, the court ruled. "Such posttrial disclosures cannot retroactively alter the trial's outcome -- either to acquit or to convict," Georges wrote. "Accordingly, we affirm the trial judge's denial of the motion to dismiss and the defendant's request for a posttrial juror inquiry." SIGN UP TO GET TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER Read's new trial is expected to be led by a special assistant prosecutor, Hank Brennan, who once represented the mobster James "Whitey" Bulger and has already begun trying to obtain unpublished records from Massachusetts reporters who have interviewed Read. Read the court's decision "I don't see how that was going to fly, because it was a mistrial, she wasn't found guilty or not guilty," said Paul Mauro, a former NYPD inspector and attorney. "Double jeopardy applies when you have a verdict. It's in the Constitution." "This is settled law," he added. "This is not double jeopardy, I agree with the court. Let's get to a new trial and resolve this." The new trial is scheduled to begin on April 1. She is also facing a wrongful death lawsuit from O'Keefe's family. Read, in a recent round of interviews, argued that she was framed by the real killers, whom she believes are other members of law enforcement O'Keefe got into a fight with after she dropped him off at the home of fellow Boston Police Officer Brian Albert. O'Keefe was found dead in the snow on Albert's front lawn. Testimony from Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor, one of the key investigators, severely hurt prosecutors in court. Jurors were seen shaking their heads in court as Read's defense team read some of his text messages. In them, he called Read a "wack job," a "babe … with no a--" and a "c---." He wrote that he wished she would kill herself and joked about looking for nude selfies while searching her phone.
