Can a lawyer question you about your religious beliefs during a trial? Can a lawyer question you about your religious beliefs during a trial? I've heard that the U.S. census asking about your belief is illegal in the United States. It has been against the law since 1976 (Public Law 94-521), allegedly because collecting such information on a mandatory basis would violate the First Amendment. So I am wondering if a lawyer can ask about one's religious belief if it's relevant to the trial at hand.
The only religious matter I'm aware of that are inadmissible are for special circumstances where one's religious beliefs may be compromised if asked in court. The classic example tends to be clergymen/women being subpeonaed for information against a defendant in court. Conversation with clergy is protected in the United States and is one of a few times cops are not allowed to listen to your one phone call or visit. The typical invocation of this would be a criminal, who confesses his sins to a Catholic priest, and may confess to a crime while receiving the Sacrament of Penance. Since Catholic Priests are bound by the &quot;Seal of Confession&quot; to not speak about the identity of the sinner or nature of the sin. The Priest can be excommunicated if he does this. However, if the religion of the witness is relevant to the case (say a discrimination case) it might be prudent to inquire into the witness's religious beliefs. Suppose a major employer has a special menu in their cafeterias for Hala and Kosher observers but does not offer a fish or non-meat option for meals on Fridays in Lent, then a Catholic's belief in this practice might be called into question.
There is no such law in the US, although there many laws prohibiting specific forms of harm, for example laws against murder, theft, assault, arson. All laws are predicated on the idea that an illegal act causes harm, but I don't get to deem, for example, that you are harming society by opposing Satan. There are no laws prohibiting any belief in the US, and such a law would be unconstitutional (in violation of the First Amendment). So being a Satanist could not possibly be illegal.
Documents are not protected under the 5th Amendment, so a person can be compelled to produce documents that may incriminate them. The person cannot be forced to testify against themselves, however – they can invoke their right to not testify against themselves. The attorney-client privilege canon has some exceptions, for example (4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with these Rules or (2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services (bearing in mind that POTUS is required by law to turn all documents over to the national Archives, so turning the records over is &quot;compliance with the law&quot; and a think that an attorney would do for their client, though this event is quite belated). No subpoena was issued and no testimony was given, so the Fifth Amendment is irrelevant.
The interpretation of state rules of civil procedure is a matter purely for state courts. Whether a state procedural rule (or even substantive approaches to jurisdiction) violates federal law, including the U.S. Constitution, is a question of federal law, but state courts are still competent to answer such questions that arise in the process of state litigation, subject only to precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States. I may be starting to just repeat things now, but even if the legal issue you're interested in (the extent to which trial courts are divested of jurisdiction during non-frivilous interlocutory appeals in matters controlled by the FAA) is substantive or jurisdictional rather than procedural, Federal circuits do not bind state courts. However, the Supreme Court of the United States can provide binding prcedent on federal law that state courts must apply. I could see the reasons in Coinbase being written broadly enough to apply to both state and federal proceedings.
If there is a divorce case and through the process of declaring a parties financial position it comes out that one of the parties has dodged a bit of tax can that evidence be held against them? Generally speaking yes, unless the relevant prosecutor's office provides a grant of immunity from prosecution for the matters disclosed, which basically never happens in a divorce case or ordinary civil case. This is why it is sometimes necessary to invoke the 5th Amendment in the context of a civil case. Does a judge have the duty to report any law-breaking that arises in civil cases No. It isn't improper for a judge to report law-breaking that is observed in the course of litigation before that judge, but the judge has no duty to do so (absent some very specialized exceptions like treason), and, in practice, rarely does report law-breaking not directly before the judge to evaluate. In contrast, in criminal cases, during the pre-trial phase of a case (and especially in the pre-arrest phase of a case), a judge often has a duty to keep knowledge of crimes obtained in that way secret until it is disclosed by the prosecution (unless the prosecution improperly fails to disclose something that it is required to disclose). This is so that criminals aren't &quot;tipped off&quot; by a judge of an impending arrest. A judge in Colorado was recently prosecuted and removed from the bench for a disclosure of that kind. or is a civil case confidential between the two parties? A judge can seal a civil case, or limit public access to certain documents, but that is the exception and not the norm and has to overcome constitutional protections of the public's right to public trials that media organizations frequently enforce successfully. Confidentiality between the parties can only be imposed for &quot;good cause.&quot; Hiding the fact that you cheated on your taxes from tax collection agencies does not constitute good cause. Footnote Most U.S. jurisdictions have an ethical rule for lawyers that prohibits them from threatening to take administrative or criminal actions to gain advantage in a civil case, although the exact details vary quite a bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This does not apply to clients of lawyers acting unilaterally and without guidance from their lawyers.
There are certain situations where the law may require you to provide some information -- particularly when you've been pulled over for a traffic violation -- but it is typically limited to basic identifying information. Beyond that, it is legally advantageous to refuse to answer questions. If you are doing so, though, you should explicitly invoke your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and your Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Invoking the Fifth prevents the police from using your refusal to answer as evidence, and invoking the Sixth requires the police to stop asking you questions. It may, however, be practically disadvantageous to refuse to answer questions, as there are cops who are just looking for a reason to act like a psychopath.
Testimonial Privilege There is a tradition, embodied in law in many jurisdictions, that a religious confession, is not subject to compelled disclosure in court or to other legal process. This arose from the Catholic practice of confession, but has been long sine extended to the similar practices of other religious organizations. Note that in most jurisdictions this applies only to confessions that a person makes about his or her own actions. It does not apply when a person reports some other person's actions to a religious authority. It also usually applies only to a formal, religiously mandated or authorized communication, not to an informal chat or counseling session. In the US this is usually a matter of state law. Let's look at the relevant law in California, which is tagged as the relevant jurisdiction. (Laws in other US states are usually similar on this subject.) Such a privilege usually applies only to actual testimony under oath, in a court or as part of court proceedings such as a deposition. The law concerning an initial report of possible child abuse is different. According to the California Evidence Code, Sections 1030-1034: Subject to Section 912, a penitent, whether or not a party,has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege. Subject to Section 912, a member of the clergy, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege. This means that neither the clergy-person, nor the person disclosing information to the clergy-person (the &quot;penitent&quot;) can be required to provide court testimony about the content of the confession. (Note that this is part of the evidence code which governs what evidence is admissible in court.) Also, the penitent may forbid such testimony from the clergy-person. Note that the privilege must be explicitly invoked, it is not automatic. Questions may be asked about the confession, and only if the penitent or the clergy-person objects and invokes the privilege does it apply. The previous three sections (included in the linked page) limit the privilege somewhat. Section 1030 states that: a &quot;member of the clergy&quot; means a priest, minister, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church or of a religious denomination or religious organization. Section 1031 states that: &quot;penitent&quot; means a person who has made a penitential communication to a member of the clergy. Section 1032 states that: &quot;penitential communication&quot; means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret. So the privilege only applies when the communication or confession was made one-to-one, with no other person present, is part of the regular religious practice of the church or group involved, and the clergy-person has a religious duty to keep the communication secret. All this is normally true of Catholic confessions. It may or may not be true of confessions or communications in other religious organizations, depending on their traditions and practices. Also code section 912(a) provides that: the right of any person to claim a privilege ... is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to disclosure made by anyone. Consent to disclosure is manifested by any statement or other conduct of the holder of the privilege indicating consent to the disclosure, including failure to claim the privilege in any proceeding in which the holder has legal standing and the opportunity to claim the privilege Mandated Reporting In recent decades laws have bee passed requiring people in various positions of trust, or positions where such people are likely encounter evidence of child abuse, to report to law enforcement when they know or reasonably suspect such abuse. Such people are called &quot;mandated reporters&quot;. A failure by a mandated reporter to make such a report when the mandated reporter has knowledge or reasonable suspicion of abuse is a crime. Note that, in most jurisdictions, mandated reporting applies to all forms of child abuse, not just sexual abuse, but also physical and emotional abuse and neglect. Therefore in this answer &quot;abuse&quot; is not limited to sexual abuse. In the US, this is a matter of state law. What positions carry mandated reporter status, what circumstances trigger a mandated report, an what the penalties are for failing to make a report all vary significantly from state to state. Mandated reporter (MR) status is separate from the testimonial privilege described above in this answer. However, circumstances that would trigger the testimonial privilege may also trigger an exception from mandated reporting. Mandated Reporting in California In California Penal code section 11165.7 (a) (32) and (a) (33) list clergy members (defined as &quot; priest, minister, rabbi, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized denomination or organization.&quot;) and &quot;any custodian of records of a clergy member&quot; as mandated reporters (MRs). However section 11166 (d) (1) provides an exception. Knowledge or suspicion acquired &quot;during a penitential communication&quot; need not be reported. For this purpose a &quot;penitential communication&quot; is defined as: a communication, intended to be in confidence, including, but not limited to, a sacramental confession, made to a clergy member who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member’s church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications, and under the discipline, tenets, customs, or practices of the clergy member’s church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret. Note that only if the &quot;church, denomination, or organization&quot; imposes on the clergy member a duty to keep the communication secret is the communication a &quot;penitential communication&quot;. If there is no such duty, the exception does not apply. Normally, a &quot;penitential communication&quot; concerns the actions of the person making the communication, not of some other person. However in the course of a communication about him- or herself, a person may mention the actions of another person. That mention would, as I understand this law, be part of the penitential communication and thus subject to the exception in section 11166 (d) (1). When is a Report Mandated? Section 11166 (a) provides that: (a) Except as provided in subdivision (d), and in Section 11166.05, a mandated reporter shall make a report to an agency specified in Section 11165.9 whenever the mandated reporter, in the mandated reporter’s professional capacity or within the scope of the mandated reporter’s employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect. ... [The paragraph goes on to define the time and manner of reports.] Section 11166 (a) (1) defines &quot;reasonable suspicion&quot;: For purposes of this article, “reasonable suspicion” means that it is objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position, drawing, when appropriate, on the person’s training and experience, to suspect child abuse or neglect. “Reasonable suspicion” does not require certainty that child abuse or neglect has occurred nor does it require a specific medical indication of child abuse or neglect; any “reasonable suspicion” is sufficient. For purposes of this article, the pregnancy of a minor does not, in and of itself, constitute a basis for a reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse. 11166 (a) mentions a MR's knowledge of or observation of the possibly abused child. It is not clear to me if a discussion with a third party, such as another adult, would be sufficient to raise a &quot;reasonable suspicion&quot; such that a MR would be required to file a report, if there is nothing that the MR has personally observed that would raise or tend to confirm such a suspicion. However section 11166 (g) provides that: Any other person who has knowledge of or observes a child whom the person knows or reasonably suspects has been a victim of child abuse or neglect may report the known or suspected instance of child abuse or neglect to an agency specified in Section 11165.9. For purposes of this section, “any other person” includes a mandated reporter who acts in the person’s private capacity and not in the person’s professional capacity or within the scope of the person’s employment. {Emphasis added.} Thus the person who makes a penitential communication to a clergy member may (but need not) report directly to Law Enforcement, and the clergy member may urge such a person to do so. Note that 11166 (i) (1) provides that: (i) (1) The reporting duties under this section are individual, and no supervisor or administrator may impede or inhibit the reporting duties, and no person making a report shall be subject to any sanction for making the report. However, internal procedures to facilitate reporting and apprise supervisors and administrators of reports may be established provided that they are not inconsistent with this article. An internal policy shall not direct an employee to allow the employee’s supervisor to file or process a mandated report under any circumstances. Note that 11166 (i) (3) provides that: (i) (3) Reporting the information regarding a case of possible child abuse or neglect to an employer, supervisor, school principal, school counselor, coworker, or other person shall not be a substitute for making a mandated report to an agency specified in Section 11165.9. Specified Scenario In a comment on an earlier version of this answer, the original poster of the question (OP) asks: So if there was a situation where church member X tells to a religious leader L (no other persons present) that church member Y has abused a child, then the legal responsibility for the leader to inform authorities depends primarily on state law and secondarily on what the religious traditions of that religious org state? Would this be correct? Yes, the responsibility of L in that situation depends on both the state law of the state where this occurs, and on the rules and traditions of the the church or other religious organization are. There are several questionable points in that scenario under California law: When X tells L about the abusive actions by Y, is that a &quot;penitential communication&quot; under the traditions of the relevant religious organization? For instance, in Catholic practice, a confession is about oneself, and any mention of the misdeeds of others is not confidential unless it would reveal the contents of the actual confession. Does religious law, tradition or practice impose a duty of secrecy on L? If not, the exception does not apply and a report is mandated if the other conditions for a report apply. My understanding (not confirmed) is that the Catholic church, for example, has in recent years changed its canon law so that a persistent course of action, showing no indication of repentance nor effort to stop the sinful action where there is a likelihood of future harm to others relives a priest from the duty of secrecy. When there is no religious duty of secrecy, the exception does not apply. Does the report by X give L &quot;knowledge&quot; or &quot;reasonable suspicion&quot; of abuse? If not, no report is mandated. If there is not at least corroboration through direct observation of the child in question, then the wording of 11166 seems to me to imply that no report is mandated, but I have not found case law confirming or opposing that conclusion. Also, under 11166 (a) (1) suspicion must be &quot;objectively reasonable&quot; to trigger a mandated report. If X is known for making unfounded accusations, X's report might not be grounds for &quot;reasonable suspicion&quot;. Thus the detailed facts about the situation, and about the rules or traditions of the church or religious organization will matter.
It would be unconstitutional for there to be a law against (public) schools having a field trip to a church or other religiously-centered building. The First Amendment requires government action to be neutral with respect to religion. This means that a public school can neither promote nor condemn religion. A field trip where the venue was a church is not per se the promotion of religion in general or a particular religion. A pattern of activity, and associated facts, could, however, establish that a seemingly innocent event is in fact religious proselytizing. If for example the teacher actually says "I want to make churches be a happy experience, so that students would be inclined to convert", that would cross the line from neutrality to advocacy. If there were many possible venues for such field trips and yet only the church is chosen, that might be evidence of non-neutrality. It really depends on the totality of facts. If the church has the only stage in town, that would be a perfectly reasonable basis for repeated trips to that church.