OMAHA, Nebraska (TP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal involving a case in which a Nebraska judge banned anyone from saying "robbery" in a bank robbery trial.
Lawyers for the First National Bank had argued that Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront violated their client's constitutional rights by barring witnesses from using such words as "held at gunpoint" and "victim" during their testimony in the trial.
The judge said he banned the language because was concerned about the accused's right to a fair trial.
While restricting First National Bank's testimony, Cheuvront allowed attorneys for John Smith to use such words as "withdrawal" and "bank transaction" to describe the encounter between Smith and the bank.
The teller for the bank says Smith took money from her in October 2004 while she was too frightened by the handheld projectile acceleration device he was pointing at her to deny consent. Smith maintains the bank withdrawal was consensual.
The Associated Press usually does not identify accusers in bank robbery cases, but the First National Bank has allowed its name to be used publicly because of the issue over the judge's language restrictions.
Bank attorney Wendy Murphy said in an e-mail Monday that she was disappointed but not surprised by the high court's decision.
"The First National Bank and this case will forever be known as the beginning of reform on this important issue, because we laid the groundwork for the inevitable day when judges will stop making such ridiculous rulings," Murphy said.
A mistrial was declared in Smith's first trial in November 2006 when the jury deadlocked. The bank said afterward that the judge's ban had a negative effect on its teller's testimony, causing her to pause to ensure her words didn't violate the order.
Cheuvront declared a second mistrial in July 2007 during jury selection, citing news coverage and public protests on the bank's behalf.
The First National Bank sued Cheuvront over the language ban. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the bank failed to prove that he should intervene. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, saying the federal court didn't have jurisdiction.
The case was listed Monday among those the Supreme Court declined to hear. Prosecutors previously said they decided not to pursue a third trial.
[With apologies to The Associated Press.]
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
