Ginnnah Muhammad  

Show Notes

• Archived Blog Post

  Date / Time: 10/19/2009 9:38 AM UTC

  Ginnnah Muhammad
  

  Wednesday, May 14, 2008 Hi I'm Ginnnah Muhammad and I just wanted to post one of the many papers that spoke on my case, and we still are fighting  from 2006 and now it's 2009 . It's hard but no one said it would be easy.

  
  Federal judge dodged veil issue by dismissing Ginnah Muhammad's case
  1:39 PM ET
  
  

  Lane Dilg [staff attorney, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief]: "In 2006, Ginnah Muhammad went to Michigan small claims court to recover $3000 from a rental-car company that she believed unfairly charged her for repairs. A state judge gave her a choice: remove the niqab she wore as a matter of religious practice before testifying, or he would dismiss her claim. As her beliefs did not permit her to remove her veil, her claim was dismissed. This decision may surprise people, and it should.
  
  On Monday, a federal court declined to hold that Muhammad's rights of access to the courts and religious freedom were violated. The federal judge's decision relies on a number of procedural doctrines intended to protect state courts from undue federal intervention. It was not, in other words, a decision on the merits under federal or state law.
  
  Should the merits be addressed, Muhammad's case would be far more difficult. The state judge declared he could not determine Muhammad's credibility without seeing her entire face, but judges frequently surmount such difficulties. Witnesses may be distraught, may be unavailable to testify in person, may have relevant disabilities, or may have professional practice as, for example, actors or poker players. Further, judges themselves may have limited or impaired eyesight. In all of those situations, a judge must simply rely on other indicators to determine whether a witness is, or is not credible; this case is no different. Throwing Muhammad's claim out was a drastic and unnecessary solution to a common problem. Principles of fairness, access to courts, and religious freedom demand better."

  
  Opinions expressed in JURIST's Hotline are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, or the University of Pittsburgh.
  • Tags:
  • Ginnnah
  • court
  • law
  • federal court
  • access
  • Permalink

Comments

	Ginnnah Muhammad 10/19/2009 10:57 AM UTC Courts allowed "exercise reasonable control" over appearance of witnesses, Not to be kick out, Nor heard or To be order to take my clothes off in front of a Judges or the orther party wins .
	Ginnnah Muhammad 10/19/2009 10:56 AM UTC Ginnah Muhammad to remain veiled while giving testimony. ... In the case of Ginnah Muhammad, the rationale of the judge dismissing her case seems to largely ... www.law.udmercy.edu/lawreview/.../v85/.../Williams_rev273.pdf
	Ginnnah Muhammad 10/19/2009 10:23 AM UTC Courts allowed "exercise reasonable control" over appearance of witnesses, Not to be kick out, Nor heard or To be order to take my clothes off in front of a Judges or the orther party wins .

You are not logged in. Please log in to write a comment.