I am sure you are right. I saw a brief picture of him on the TV then they talked with a legal specialist about the case. I came in on what I assumed was the tail end of the story.

Regardless of what he was wearing or who he was, I don't see how they could reasonable stop the family from wearing the button. I would think a crying mother, wife, or children would be more prejudicial; but have never heard of them being tossed form a court room or told not to cry.

Here’s what I find even more outrageous about this case. Congress has the constitutional ability to limit what types of cases courts can hear. Courts can be restricted by Congress, especially courts that serve at Congress’s leisure, although even the Supreme Court can be limited. Congress passed a law that told federal courts to respect the decision of the state courts and their legal processes when it comes to criminal cases except when laws have blatantly been violated. What law has been blatantly violated by button wearing? This should never have even been tried by the 9th.

__________________
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." Alexander Hamilton

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
Plato

Facts are that galleries do get cleared if a judge thinks there is ANYTHING prejudicial going on that can influence a jury. It is the judges choice, whether you think they are 'activist' of not. One of the most famous cases is the Manson vs CA (Tate/LaBianca) murders, this is much more overt but the court was cleared numerous times because of supporters for Charles Mason. Look, it happens on both sides and then appeals happen, this is the system whether you like it or not. No, a law enforcement officer should be protected but the people wearing the buttons should be careful that they have put that court case in jeopardy by wearing that INSIDE the courtroom...go out on the courthouse steps and do that, even out in the hallway.

I can understand why you thought that, Dom - Cranberry Girl showed me a picture earlier today of the victim's brother holding his button, and it looked like a police uniform to me, but according to all the media stories I've managed to read, it was actually a Navy uniform. I'm trying to find that link again, but it's next to impossible *L* 500+ links to this story on the internet and only one that actually shows a picture of the button in question... figures.

You know what seems funny to me about this case? The petitioner argues that the family was wearing the button out of mourning - that this was their own way of mourning. Maybe I can see that if one family member was wearing a button, but all three, sitting in the front row? I don't think so... I think it was their intent to send a message to the jury that Studer was a victim, and that could potentially make a difference, because Musladin was maintaining that he was acting in self-defense.

I'm thinking that there's more to this case than meets the eye.... it can't be that open-and-shut and still make it to the Supreme Court.

Here's a good summary link to the circumstances of the case:

http://docket.medill.northwestern.ed...ves/003568.php

I am not sure that the reason the Court is taking the case is because there is so much more than meets the eye. I might agree if the Court took the case while the 9th Circuit upheld the conviction. I think they took the case because they don't want the 9th Circuit to make bad law. I think there are cases which could be open and shut and make it to the Supreme Court if the appellate courts did such a bad job in the appeal; that would seem to force the Court's hand in hearing the case, regardless of the complexity of the facts of the case.

Why are courts making laws at all?

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w

If the buttons showed him in a navy uniform, and he was not at that time in the navy; the family was definately trying to influence tha jury by implying war hero.

Whether that in of itself was allowed inapropriately by the judge it would cause one to look more closely at the jury's verdict and the effect the buttons may have had on them.

It might simply have been that the judges biased came into play.

__________________
Archimedes
Because they can't wait use Rescue 8
self closing flotation rescue device.

So you actually see a problem with family members wearing buttons portraying their dead husband/father/son? Seems a crying family member would cause more prejudice. I don't think the defendant has a right to say who can and can't come in a public courtroom regardless of whether they are wearing a button portraying their lost loved one or not.

I did not say I saw a problem with it. I expressed what I thought they might have seen as a problem. I conjectured their possible objections. I don't care one way or the other. My feelings are that it was rather superficial for the judge to reverce it. I do think though that the family was trying to influence the jury, I sure would.

__________________
Archimedes
Because they can't wait use Rescue 8
self closing flotation rescue device.

I say no to the buttons!!!
I may be in the Minority but I do not think the jury should be influenced by the alleged victims family in the courtroom!!!
Whatever happened to a 'fair' trial?