Miles's blog

One of the attorneys for a defendant accused of the 9/11 crimes, Cheryl Bormann, has demonstrated nothing if not excess zealotry.  She appeared in court in a full hijab, completely covered except for her face.  She claims to have done so out of respect for her client’s religious beliefs, and says she always covers herself in this manner when she speaks to him.  I can accept her acting this way if she thinks it is important.  However, not being satisfied to make whatever statement she was making in her own appearance, she went to an extreme that, in my mind, follow the actions the defendants in trying to make a mockery of the court.  She demanded that all women in the court dress in more modest attire.  The reason: so that the defendants would not be “distracted” by the women, thus committing a sin.  The prosecutor made the only reasonable response when asked to reply-he did not give this request the dignity of an answer.

Forgetting for a second that demanding anyone else do anything else to prevent you from committing a sin is both outrageous, stupid, and the epitome of failing to take responsibility for your own actions (but this “logic” is behind the repression of women in many countries), that an American attorney can seek a court order along these lines shows how the practice of law has degenerated into something demanding little more respect that bouncer at a strip club.  The entire arraignment took on a circus atmosphere, not the least because the attorneys for these terrorists exacerbated the problems their clients chose to create.  Apparently zealous representation now means deliberately obstructing the process.

I mean seriously, asking a court to rule upon the clothing of others in the courtroom?  Here is what the New York Times quoted her as saying:

She also explained that in 2008, during an earlier attempt to try the case before a tribunal, a female paralegal on the prosecution team had regularly worn short skirts and “very revealing tops” to court, which was a distraction to the defendants, making it harder for them to focus on a proceeding that may result in their execution. A woman on the prosecution team on Saturday was similarly dressed in a way that clashed with her client’s religious beliefs, Ms. Bormann said.

How much focusing does a defendant have to do in the courtroom?  And whose responsibility is it to get him focused?  How far does this elimination of distraction go?  Will we see motions for post-conviction relief based upon denial of due process for excessive cleavage? 

I have been distracted in court many times, often for the same reasons the attorney claims these defendants are.  (And I bet pretty much every male attorney has too at some time.)  But somehow I managed to put aside my interest in feminine pulchritude to concentrate on the task at hand.  There are lots of distractions in courtrooms, from disruptive defendants to loud spectators to sleeping jurors.  But this is a serious undertaking, and anyone involved needs to be focused.  As the attorney stated, these defendants are on trial for their lives, and they are going to be distracted by a little T&A?  I doubt it.  I am willing to bet that on the four planes these terrorists had hijacked on 9/11 there were women with revealing clothing, and the hijackers did not seem too distracted in getting their jobs done. 

More distressing to me if that an attorney wanted to indulge this attitude.  I have seen and heard of many stupid and even outrageous requests by criminal defense attorneys, but never anything as ridiculous as this one.  Ms. Bormann can dress in any way she sees fit as long as it respects the decorum of the courtroom, but to actually ask a judge to enforce a dress code is unthinkable.  Does she really believe we should let the defendant’s control the process?  It sounds like in many ways they already are—receiving prayer brakes, for example.  Should our processes really bend to the personal beliefs of everyone involved?  Ironic that these defendants, who demand everyone bend to their beliefs, should refuse to compromise theirs.  I guess in modern American courtrooms, everyone has to yield to the parties who are most strident.  And no compromise would be acceptable to the defendants.  Their beliefs demand completely-covered women.  Longer skirts and turtlenecks don’t solve the problem.  It is all or nothing, so why would be Bormann want half measures?

What do you think would happen if we were on trial in a country controlled by these men?  I guarantee their courts would not care what we think or want.  Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and even to some reasonable accommodation to their individual circumstances, but extremism on behalf of our court system is neither required nor commendable.