Comments on: Piercing the veil

By: Denver Lawyer

Denver Lawyer — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:38:34 +0000

JHS, I’m sorry I didn’t mean to pile on. I don’t think JB’s comment had been approved by the webmaster when I wrote mine.

By: JHS

JHS — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:18:17 +0000

To “JB” and “Denver Lawyer”: Poor wording on my part; granted in this case seeing her face wouldn’t help the defendants much. In other cases, it could lead to absurd situations. A woman accused of shoplifting, for example, could show up on her court date wearing a niqab, claiming that she has suddenly converted to Islam. The case against her could fall through if male witnesses were not allowed to identify her.

By: Denver Lawyer

Denver Lawyer — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:51:06 +0000

“Or like in this car rental dispute, the defendants may need to see the plaintiff to identify her, or to remember if they ever saw her patronize their business.”

Nitpick — if this woman wears a veil in public all the time, then the only way the defendants would be able to identify her is by seeing her *with* the veil, right?

By: Edward Lunny

Edward Lunny — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:41:29 +0000

Isn’t one of the foundations of our legal system, the ability of the accused to confront the accuser (s) ? How can one properly “confront” an accuser if said accuser can hide his/herself behind a disguise. Irrespective of ones alledged religious convictions, I would want to see my accuser, indeed would demand it. This is also an excellent illustration of just why government and religion should not be intermingled.

By: Amy Alkon

Amy Alkon — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:32:07 +0000

For you lawyers out there, is there anything to stop Muslims from making us conform to Sharia law in the name of our constitutional freedoms? That’s what seems to be the underlying goal in all these cases cropping up.

By: jb

jb — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:32:37 +0000

JHS: If she’s this adamant about wearing the niqab, no party to the case ever saw her without it, so seeing her would prove no help to identification.

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:39:39 +0000

Invid: two problems with that:

1) Assuming Michigan is like many states, since this is small claims, there isn’t a jury — just a judge.

2) Opposing counsel and the opposing party generally have a right to observe the witness also.

Incidentally, because of that (as well as the possibility of a jury) the compromise offered by the woman — to have a woman judge — wouldn’t help.

By: JHS

JHS — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:58:31 +0000

I disagree with MF. Fingerprints are often not good enough. What good would they do for eyewitnesses to a crime? Or like in this car rental dispute, the defendants may need to see the plaintiff to identify her, or to remember if they ever saw her patronize their business.
Besides, most people don’t have their fingerprints on file anywhere.

By: Invid

Invid — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:47:59 +0000

The jury is the finder of fact, why not let her testify and allow the jury to decide if they found her credible?

Possibly allow counsel to express concern about the veil.

By: Yoda

Yoda — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:02:09 +0000

Picture ID (that shows your actual face) is required for a driver’s license in Michigan if I recall, correct?

If true, then I don’t see why it’s an issue here. I’ve never been asked to prove my identity in a court via any other means.