What do you think? What should the court rule in this case?

From what I understand an Appellate Court overturned a conviction of a man who murdered a policeman because the victims's families wore buttons portraying the picture of the murdered police officer. The 9th circuit (which gets reversed a lot) said that this was prejudicial against the defendant.

Should the wearing of buttons portraying a victim be barred from a courtroom? Does this violate the defendant's rights?

Not a chance. Yet another horrible ruling from the 9th circus.

__________________
"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

What I don't understand is how judges who consistently have their decisions overturned can stay on the bench.

Well, in theory Congress could just abolish the entire court per their constitutional power. I don’t think it’s what should be done, but it would be an interesting scenario for a case study. What I find ridiculous is that all that the button shows is that the family loved this man and that they are in mourning. Maybe it adds a sense of sympathy and pain, but I don’t see how it is prejudicial of the defendant. If the defendant is found innocent, great for him. The family is sill in mourning and that is all that the button means. I fail to see how it could influence a jury in a meaningful way, especially in a way large enough to change the outcome. Give me a break.

__________________
"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

Dom - I'm not saying the 9th Circuit was right or wrong in overturning the conviction in this case (I haven't had a chance to study all of the particulars yet), but I can see how the perceptions of the jury can be manipulated by small symbolic gestures. You're doing it here yourself. Assuming the case you're talking about is Carey v. Musladin, the victim (Tom Studer) wasn't a cop at all, but instead was involved with Musladin's estranged wife. I'm not saying this excuses the crime - far from it - but by classifying him as a "cop killer" does serve to prejudice perceptions, much as the wearing of the badges might have served to do so with the jury.

Just being a "Devil's Advocate" here *L* ...I'm interested in taking a closer look at the case, though. Although on the face of it, the 9th Circuit's reasoning seem frivolous, to be fair, I don't think any of us can come to a firm conclusion one way or the other without looking at all of the facts.

Although this may sound awful, the victims family should have been asked to remove the buttons prior to entering the courtroom. It does affect the jury when they are looking at a picture of the murder victim. Although this does seem unfair to the victims family, the courts do not look to highly on things like this. But, to overturn the conviction...that is just wrong, the man is still a murderer, whether the family wears their pictures or not. Let's hope it gets reversed...SOON!!!!

I don't know the guy's name, but the pictures I saw had him in a police uniform, badge and all.

As far as coming up with a firm conclusion . . . I heard this morning that the Supreme Court will actually overule the 9th Circuit, yet again.

If the facts alone were that they wore the buttons then I think it is pretty obvious the 9th Circuit was wrong. From what I heard they wree not vocal in the courtroom. If wearing the buttons is wrong, should we also bar family members from crying at points during the trial? That would seem prejudicial as well.

Dom...could you please link the pic of him in uniform? I have been looking for it and have been unable to find it

Thanks

__________________
Lippy opinionated redhead...beware!*LOL*

Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)
Common sense is not so common.
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/27/sc...ial/index.html

Carey v. Musladin

Hearing date: October 11

At issue: Did a convicted murderer receive due process after the crime victim's family wore buttons picturing the deceased at the trial?

The case and arguments: Mathew Musladin was convicted of shooting Tom Studer, the fiancé of his estranged wife, to death in San Jose, California, in May 1994. During the two-week trial, at least three members of Studer's family sat in the front row wearing buttons showing the smiling victim in his Navy uniform. The two-to-four inch diameter buttons were in clear sight of the jurors, and the judge denied a defense motion to prevent the family from wearing them in court. The defendant's lawyer's appealed, saying the buttons prejudiced the jury. State courts rejected the appeal, but a federal court intervened and ordered a new trial.

The impact: The justices will decide the larger question of whether a state judge's error allowing the buttons was so severe that a federal court was right to step in and toss out the conviction.

I have found mention of a Navy uniform but none of a police officer's uniform- perhaps that is what you saw?

__________________
Lippy opinionated redhead...beware!*LOL*

Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)
Common sense is not so common.
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

"What I find ridiculous is that all that the button shows is that the family loved this man and that they are in mourning."

>>>Maybe they should have worn the buttons when the officer was still alive. That way the defense couldn't have shown that wearing buttons in a courtroom is prejudicial.