Mmmmm.... I'm on the fence a bit with this, and would need to know more about what's going on.
There is not necessarily a civic duty to testify in court. If you are subpoenaed, you *have* to testify... failure to do so is contempt of court, punishable in its own right.
There is a civic duty to sit on a jury, but that's not what she's being asked to do. Failure to do that, in any case, can result in fines, jail time, or both.
I don't know if she's being subpoenaed in this case, but all it takes is a piece of paper for the judge to make that happen.
And the judge can issue a subpoena if, in the judge's view,
Quote:
if and only if the truthful testimony of that named person has the specific and plausible potential to affect the final decision of that justice in the proceeding
(extracted from here)
|
That said, there are alternatives. Video testimony, restricted audience, remove everyone except jury, counsel, and necessary court officials from the room... I'm sure the judge can get creative.
While I have not grown up in a world where women are constantly covered, I understand how divisive an issue it can be. If I were the one making the decision, I would want it to be completely above-board, with logic and reasoning behind it that will withstand scrutiny. Anything along the lines of "because I said so" or "This is my courtroom, and I will run it how I want" are immediate failures.
WRT strip searches, those are done in private areas with members of the same sex present (AFAIK... hasn't happened to me
). A courtroom, while not *fully* public, is certainly more public than that.
So in a nutshell, I disagree that the judge's decision to have her appear uncovered will not set a precedent. Judges' decisions always do, and this one certainly will. For that reason, it had better be well-thought-out.