An Unholy Union? The Use of Religion in the Courtroom

Abstract

The Federal Rules of Evidence, an important structural framework for just administration of law, includes Rule 610: of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced. This is designed to protect witnesses from being judged for their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, sincerity necessarily goes to credibility, making an inherent contradiction. Rule 610, meanwhile, is limited to a very specific purpose; outside of this narrow use, evidence of religion is not actually excluded. For example, churches often teach a character for non-violence. A person raised in this tradition may, within the confines of Rule 610, presumably put on evidence of this trait. In response, might the prosecution put on some less savory aspects of faith, like an opinion about sexual minorities?Rule 610 should therefore be reworked into something that fully represents the free exercise guarantee: Evidence of an individual’s religious beliefs is generally inadmissible.As for the question of sincerity, this should be withheld from a jury and instead considered as a preliminary question for the judge to determine. With these two changes, the unfair prejudices sometimes affiliated with religion can be justly excluded from trial.