I’ve written before about the possibility of doing jury duty barefoot. But it was fairly generic.
Let’s go on and look at a “hypothetical” situation.
Here’s the “set-up” . . .
- You’ve been called to jury duty in Florida.
- You’ve been denied entry to the courthouse before.
- When you got the notice for jury duty you wrote to the judge to inform him that you never wore shoes, for religious reasons.
- The response that was sent back said that you were not excused from jury duty.
- When trying to enter the courthouse, you were again refused entry.
So, what do you do next? Sue?
Despite my reputation as overly litigious, I always try to give the other side the chance to do the right thing. Here is how I would approach this situation. It involved trying to sway those who are really responsible.
First, I am rather amused by the response to the notice to the court that he never wears shoes. Somehow the court interpreted that as an attempt to get out of jury duty, which was not the case. There may be other misunderstandings.
Next, it is pretty unlikely that the courthouse actually has a rule against bare feet. Here in the Columbus, Ohio area I’ve been refused entry a couple of times; each time I pursued it it turned out that there really was no rule. I’ve also been in a lot of other courthouses, including the Federal courthouses in Columbus and Cincinnati. The guards there (much better trained) gave me no grief. So one has to go above the head of the guard.
As I said, it is unlikely that the courthouse itself has any barefoot rule. However, judges are allowed to make rules for their individual chambers, so that might be confusing a guard. (I had that very thing happen when I was once refused entry to the Franklin County Courthouse.)
If you have been called for jury duty, the thing to do is to call the Jury Manager. There is a specific person whose job it is to coordinate all things jury. Let them know that you tried to show up for jury duty, but were refused entry. Talking to them in person (on the phone) removes the possibility of mistakes (such as them thinking you are trying to get out of jury duty). Make sure you have a copy of the state health code letter that states that there is no health code requiring shoes in public buildings.
With any luck, this person will correct and instruct the guards.
If that doesn’t work, the next step is the Administrative Judge. Every court has an Administrative Judge. When there are multiple judges in a location, one of them gets appointed to be the Administrative Judge (and it rotates year-by-year among all the judges). You won’t actually talk to that judge—you’ll talk to their secretary or law clerk. Same difference.
Stress that you are more than willing to do jury duty; you just won’t compromise your religious beliefs to do so. (Also add that, if you are forced to compromise your religious beliefs, there is no way you could possibly be an impartial juror, since it has become clear to you that this court is not interested in justice, but just appearances.)
You might also add that you would, aside from your bare feet, otherwise be dressed pretty conservatively.
You would also want cite for them the following court case from a Florida appeals court: Joseph v. State of Florida, 642 So.2d 613 (1994).
In it they quote with approval a Rhode Island decision:
We agree that courts have an interest in maintaining dignity and decorum by establishing various rules to govern the conduct of participants. [List of citations removed.] However, the rule of Sherbert is that restrictions on religious practices are permissible only where the practices threaten public safety, peace, or order. We do not believe that wearing a prayer cap in court threatens these benchmarks enumerated in Sherbert.
Often, religious beliefs are minimized in courts unless they are mainstream. That is not the situation in this court case. All the court required was that the beliefs be sincerely held, which I think applies here in our “hypothetical”.
If none of this works, talking to the Jury Manager or Administrative Judge, then one’s remaining choice is just not to show up for jury duty. This can result in a charge of contempt of court, and then one would have to defend oneself. At that point it would be a rather interesting legal battle. But with any luck it would never get to that (particularly considering Joseph, above).
By the way, pro se litigators tend to rely on lofty statements like a constitutional right to liberty and freedom to pursue happiness. That’s not how things work in the real world, and saying such things will just make them laugh at you and ignore you (while still coming down hard on you). What really counts are hard citations of previous court opinions that show exactly how the law applies (and how those constitutional rights are realized). It’s hard to do, but absolutely necessary.
It would be interesting to see how this “hypothetical” case ended up following these suggestions.
I doubt I will ever need this, but as a dedicated defender of constitutional liberties, it is worth keeping on file. My question would be: what, in the absence of religious belief (say, for instance, health and well-being, such as yours), be the basis? It isn’t in the First Amendment, like religion, and the Preamble “general welfare” clause can be invoked either way to serve bigots (plus that part of the Constitution is too often ignored). Like most constitutional issues, it goes well beyond bare feet – such as the yarmulke you alluded to, or a Sikh turban.
Paul, I’m afraid the answer is “nothing, really.” Judges are given wide latitude in their courtrooms. Supposed, the power of punishing contempt should only be for actions that materially disrupt the judicial process (which, then, should be the basis for dress codes). Of course, a barefoot juror would not disrupt anything. But judges love their power as much as anybody in authority, and appeals courts generally back them up.
Bob, I think it should be “That’s NOT how things work” (a typo).
[Thanks, fixed. Bob.]