Objection noted
By Brandon Astor Jones
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
"In all criminal prosecutions ... the accused shall enjoy the right to a ... trial, by an impartial jury ..."— First and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States
Clear and egregious violations of the amendments cited above are the order of the day in certain judicial circuits in the US south.
For example, several courtrooms in Marietta, Georgia, are in knowing violation of the separation of church and state. Violations can take on very subtle forms, and, if you are of the Christian faith, it may be difficult to appreciate them some Christians do not see the subtle intrusions that religious symbols have on state judicial activity.
Ulysses Simpson Grant (the 18th president of the United States) once stated that we should "Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school, supported entirely by contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separate." I agree.
In one case, a higher court ordered the removal of a metal plaque on which the Ten Commandments greeted every person who entered the Cobb County Superior Court Building. However, even though the authorities took down the Ten Commandments outside, they did not remove from the inside hundreds of Christian religious symbols — a motif of stained wooden crucifixes on the walls of certain courtrooms.
Think about that for a moment. At eye level, directly across from the jury box, jurors, most of whom are apt to be Christians, decide whether a defendant lives or dies. When those jurors look directly in front, they see the judge and to his immediate right a series of crucifixes; and just beyond and below more crucifixes sits the defendant.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In my layman's interpretation of those words, no state body should promote any religion. Of course, more than a few Cobb County Christians might not agree with my interpretation. On the other hand, we can be fairly certain that if instead of crucifixes, there were a series of Islamic stars and crescent moons or stars of David, those same Christians might well be outraged.
Now take three words from the Sixth Amendment: "... an impartial jury ...". I would consider the judge (and several of the jurors who re-sentenced me to death in September 1997) to be something less than impartial. From the trial transcript let me share with you the defence counsel's objection to the courtroom motif:
"There's a wooden motif, Your Honour, that surrounds the courtroom ... It is an objection and a concern to that wooden motif that it resembles and that it looks like a crucifix cross. We voice our objection. We state that it is — it could have some sort of prejudice."
The judge's response was both sad and clear. He felt obliged to defend his domain:
"Of course, I've been in this courtroom for — since I became a State Court Judge in 1983 and, of course, I guess I took the wooden motif for granted. It does, in fact, have a long, extended line and some horizontal pieces of wood going through it. I don't know if I've ever visualised it as being a crucifix, cross, and I don't believe that — I just don't believe that in its current status that it would be of any influence on the jury, that it has any religious connotations to anyone ... Your objection is noted."
It should also be noted that the original death penalty was set aside because the jury (while deliberating on life or death nearly 20 years ago) were allowed to take a Bible into their deliberations. Because various media reported that fact, it is logical to suspect that some, if not all, of the jurors knew that and may well have discussed it.
[The writer is a prisoner on death row in the United States. He welcomes letters commenting on his columns. He can be written to at: Brandon Astor Jones, EF-122216, G3-77, Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, PO Box 3877, Jackson, GA 30233, USA. Brandon and his friends are trying to raise funds to pay for a lawyer for his appeal. If you can help, please make cheques payable to the Brandon Astor Jones Defence Account and post to 41 Neutral St, North Sydney NSW 2060, or any Commonwealth Bank, account No. 2127 1003 7638.]