WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) – In a criminal trial I thought it was the job of the defense to argue in any way they thought reasonable to defend their client in court. I also thought it was the job of the jury to adjudicate the truth of the arguments offered by each side; and that it was the job of the judge to assure as much as possible that impartial jurors be selected to adjudicate whether the guilt of the defendants has been proven or not, and to impartially oversee the procedural progress of the trial.
Such, however, does not seem to have been the understanding of the judge in the present FACE Act trial in Washington D.C. in which charges of conspiracy and violations of a federal statute – a statute dependent upon the now-overturned Roe v. Wade and designed to assure at the federal level access to abortion facilities – are being leveled against nine pro-lifers, who sought to rescue the unborn from the untimely death of abortion.
Yesterday, while I watched Day One of the trial unfold in the courtroom, the prosecution and defense made their opening statements and heard the first several witnesses that the prosecution brought to the case. If the selection of a predominantly pro-abortion jury – in a case in which the defendants have said they acted out of their conviction that abortion is the murder of the baby – were not already an indication that the verdict is essentially predetermined in this trial, then the continual objections of the prosecution during the opening statement of the defense, and the full cooperation of the judge in sustaining them, should indicate the guided direction in which this trial is going.
To read the rest, please go to LIFESITE NEWS.
