Attorneys argue that banning those who believe God answers prayer from civic duty would deny the right to a jury of one’s peers
ATLANTA, Feb. 23, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments in United States v. Corrine Brown, a case in which attorneys with First Liberty Institute, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and Kent & McFarland contend that a juror was impermissibly dismissed during deliberation for seeking guidance through prayer and believing his prayers were answered. Last year, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a lower court decision upholding the judge’s decision to remove the juror. The full Court decided to rehear the case in September.
Paul Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General, partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and First Liberty network attorney, who argued the case today said, “A nation that enshrines religious toleration in its founding document and invokes the religious beliefs of its citizenry to reinforce their public oaths cannot dismiss jurors based on the way they express their religious convictions.”
“Jurors end their oath to deliberate fairly with ‘so help me God,’ but removing a juror for believing God answered his prayer for guidance sends a chilling message to the millions of Americans who seek divine guidance through prayer that they are automatically disqualified from the noble, civic duty of serving on a jury,” said Lea Patterson, Counsel for First Liberty.
In July 2016, a federal grand jury indicted former Congresswoman Corrine Brown on fraud charges; the case proceeded to a jury trial in April 2017. During the jury’s deliberations, the district court removed a juror who stated to other jurors that he had prayed for and believed he received the guidance of the Holy Spirit in considering the case. The judge questioned the juror, who confirmed that he had no “political, religious, or moral beliefs that would preclude [him] from serving as a fair and impartial juror” and that he was not “having any difficulties with any religious or moral beliefs that are, at this point, bearing on or interfering with [his] ability to decide the case on the facts presented and on the law as [the court] gave it to [him] in the instructions.” Despite the juror’s repeated assurances to the court that his religious beliefs were not interfering with his ability to follow the law and the evidence, the judge determined that the juror had received improper influence from outside the trial.
Brown moved for a new trial, arguing that the juror was improperly removed, but the district court denied the motion and imposed sentence. Brown appealed, and a panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court decision. In September, the Eleventh Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc and vacated the panel’s opinion.
About First Liberty Institute
First Liberty Institute is a non-profit public interest law firm and the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom for all Americans.
To arrange an interview, contact Lacey McNiel at firstname.lastname@example.org or by calling 972-941-4453.