TribLIVE

| USWorld

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Constitutionality of law challenged in Ohio beard-cutting case

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012
 

In an effort to end an Amish debearding case before trial, lawyers for a dissident Ohio group and its leader want a judge to find the federal hate-crimes law unconstitutional based, in part, on religious grounds.

"If the court agrees, perhaps a remedy would be that this case would go away," J. Dean Carro, a defense lawyer in the case and law professor at the University of Akron, said on Tuesday.

In a motion filed pm Monday, the defense asked U.S. District Judge Dan A. Polster of Cleveland to dismiss charges against Samuel Mullet Sr., 66; his nephew, Lester Mullet, 37; and 10 others. Their request is based, among other things, on grounds that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act cannot be applied to "religious activity under the First Amendment, and specifically, as to actions between private parties within the same religion."

Carro represents Lester Mullet. Sam Mullet is represented by federal public defender Wendi Overmyer, who could not be reached.

In December, a federal grand jury indicted Sam Mullet and 16 other members of his Amish community outside Bergholz, Ohio, about 60 miles west of Pittsburgh, in at least four beard- and hair-cutting attacks. Prosecutors claim the attacks were intended as revenge on mainstream Old Order Amish who previously tried to excommunicate Sam Mullet for his unorthodox behavior.

Federal prosecutors had no comment "beyond the fact that we have every confidence that the law is constitutional," said Michael Tobin, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cleveland.

Charles Haynes, a Washington-based religious freedoms expert with the First Amendment Center, said he knows of no other constitutional challenges to the hate-crimes statutes citing religious protections under the First Amendment.

"It sounds to me like this is a pretty big stretch, but you never know what a court might do," Haynes said. "I'm not sure religious protections extend to alleged crimes."

Hate crimes prosecuted so far under the law have been race-related, not inter-religious disputes between private parties, defense attorneys noted in their filing.

"I don't know of any cases like this," Carro said. "As far as our research, there are no others."

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Nation

  1. 2 women advance to final phase of Army Ranger training
  2. Obama to mandate steeper emissions cuts from power plants
  3. State Department accuses top Clinton aide of violations
  4. Pressure mounts for Biden to join 2016 White House race
  5. Dusty Atlantic Ocean thwarts tropical storms
  6. Marines finally ready to roll out controversial fighter jet
  7. Construction of giant bridges sparks curiosity, high demand for public tours
  8. Bee vaccination study gives insight, could aid food production
  9. Clintons hauled in $139M in past 8 years
  10. U.S., Hong Kong researchers develop computer model to examine spread of influenza
  11. 4 dead, 65 sickened in Bronx by Legionella