Extremist’s lawyer claims judicial expert compromised by Jewish origin
Judicial expert resigns after defense lawyer for far-right Workers’ Party for Social Justice activist says he’s compromised by his ethnicity
Tom Jones | 10.01.2012
ACCESS RESTRICTED
This article is completely accessible only to users of the VIP POSITION service. If you are signed up for the service, then please check to ensure that you are logged in. If you are logged in and the article has not completely displayed, you can get more detailed information on your user profile page.
Clicking on the button VIP gives you detailed information about the benefits of signing up for the VIP POSITION service. VIP
Send by email
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Czech Position values democratic discussion. Please respect the Terms of Service, which are intended to encourage correct and meaningful communications.
By entering your comment, you agree to these rules. We reserve the right to remove improper comments.
Thank you for your cooperation.
President Klaus' moral weakness equals victory for racism
HasWeWe I am astonished and disgusted by the failure of President Klaus to defend judicial expert Michal Mazel, who is under attack because he is Jewish. Even worse, Klaus' office condones the attack! Is this the 1930's? Has our political leadership lost its memory as well as any morality? This is a shameful event. If the president does not act to reverse this situation, then he has failed all Czechs who oppose anti-Semitism and the corruption of the judicial system by racism.
Impartiality in the judicial system
Let's consider how the US courts consider the issue of disqualification of judges, an understandably higher requirement than for expert witnesses:
Judges shall disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter of controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material witness concerning it;
(c) the judge or the judge's spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household*:
(d) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(e) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(f) is known by the judge to have a more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;
(g) is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
This is not a matter of ethnicity or religion of a judicial expert per say - it is a matter of his opinions influenced by his prejudices and thusly be subject to reasonable questioning. It is a matter of court integrity. So, why would a Czech judicial expert not disqualify himself due to impartiality that might be reasonably questioned because of his biases/prejudices (as it was in this case) while an American judge would be required to do so? Is that because the Czech court system is more ethical than the American one? Did the court in the Nurnberg Trial allow a defense attorney with Nazi background? No, for the same reason.