I argued that the prosecutors had deliberately “thrown a skunk into the jury box” when they

4.2.12 WC: 191694 I argued that the prosecutors had deliberately “thrown a skunk into the jury box” when they introduced irrelevant evidence that Swami had engaged in a homosexual relationship with a follower. To a West Virginia jury back then, this could be massively prejudicial. In addition, the prosecution introduced evidence that teachers at the community school had molested children and that Swami was aware of this but did nothing. Finally, they introduced: “a videotape segment from the television program West 57th Street (a "news" exposé program). The videotape showed a child of the New Vrindaban community stating that he prayed "to" Swami, a statement generally offensive to the religious sensitivities of typical jurors. More inflammatory was a statement by Swami comparing women to dogs and condoning lightly slapping one's wife for disciplinary reasons.” I argued the appeal before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit consisting of three elderly conservative judges in Charleston, South Carolina. I could not imagine a group that would be less sympathetic to a Hare Krishna guru accused of the horrendous crimes of which my client stood convicted. But my wife’s older cousin, Morris Rosen, an experienced lawyer from Charleston, cautioned me not to give up. “These old-line Southerners care about justice, and they don’t have ambitions beyond their current job. They’ll give your client a fair shake as long as you don’t overstate your case. Be straight with them and they’ll be straight with you.” My cousin, who was himself “a good ol’ boy,” was absolutely on target. I argued in a low key manner, focusing on precedents from the court, and especially from the three judges. In their decision, they followed the law, concluding as follows: “We accept without need of extensive argument that implications of child molestation, homosexuality, and abuse of women unfairly prejudice a defendant. Indeed, no evidence could be more inflammatory or more prejudicial than allegations of child molestation. When evidence of a defendant's involvement in several of these activities is presented to the jury, the risk of unfair prejudice is compounded. In such a case, we fear that jurors will convict a defendant based on the jurors' disdain or their belief that the defendant's prior bad acts make guilt more likely. Furthermore, we are especially sensitive to prejudice in a trial where defendants are members of an unpopular religion.” The court in a 2-1 decision reversed the convictions. The rule of law prevailed over the prejudices of men and women. 209 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017296