Respected Madam,
You're a very senior, highly accomplished criminal lawyer with a stupendous track record. Your contribution in protection of truth and justice in this country is well known and I am extremely grateful to you for that.
I would strongly urge you to consider these questions:
1) Is it ethical and legal to have an amicus curiae who is strongly biased towards one side for the matter at hand?
2) Can a biased amicus, who functions as the extended mind of the court, can cause violation of natural justice and principle of nemo judex by making the court biased as well?
3) Do you have a strong bias in favor of marital rape law (an evidence being this article) or has your stand changed over the years and you feel you can render an unbiased service to the court in this matter?
I fully trust you and do not doubt your ability in doing your job with full honesty and in an ethical way. I am just too much worried about the misuse, practical challenges in standard of evidence for recording of consent, violating of human rights of husbands, absence of any remedy for husbands who are equally likely to face cruelty and sexual violations from their equal partner while living in the same house 24x7 which also violates Art 14 & Art 21 of husband. I worry that this can have a huge destructive impact on my country and I cannot afford to be a mute spectator. Hence, I wrote this mail to you.
I am sure you will make the right judgment and provide unbiased service as Amicus to the court. In case you weigh strongly on one side, it is totally fair to argue on behalf of one side and to not hesitate in withdrawing as Amicus.
===================================== ==============================
UPDATE:
Reference links on Amicus:
After reading some more on basic definition of Amicus, I stand corrected here that amicus need not be an unbiased person. It's not unethical for amicus to just speak from just one side of it without providing arguments from the other side. Any text calling amicus as a neutral person may be over interpreting it.
Eg. do you expect Amicus to say, "Milord, first I will do my best to persuade you to not hang the accused and then, after Intermission, I will do my best to persuade you to hang the accused, so that you're more confused than before in whether to hang him or not."
An amicus curiae (literally, "friend of the court"; plural: amici curiae) often referred to as amicus brief is defined as the legal brief where someone who is not a party to a case assists a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. The decision on whether to consider an amicus brief lies within the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and its origin of the term has been dated back to 1605–1615. The scope of amicus curiae is generally found in the cases where broad public interests are involved and concerns regarding civil rights are in question.[1]
In the United States, amicus curiae typically refers to what in some other jurisdictions is known as an intervenor: a person or organization who requests to provide legal submissions so as to offer a relevant alternative or additional perspective regarding the matters in dispute. In other jurisdictions, such as Canada, an amicus curiae is a lawyer who is asked by the court to provide legal submissions regarding issues that would otherwise not be aired properly, often because one or both of the parties is not represented by counsel
Do you find any mention of unbiasedness/neutral etc?
I had this doubt in mind while writing Qn 1 above. The answer to my questions above are:
1. Yes. It is ethical and legal for amicus to be completely biased.
2. No. Amicus is not extended mind but a friend of court who can shine light on areas hidden before the court. Judge may not be influenced by those hidden areas or they might. Amicus do not touch/share the mind of judges, so no violation of nemo judex.
3. Yes, I have a strong bias in favor of marital rape and I will do my best to persuade the court in that direction.
Amicus is usually appointed to defend the side which may not be represented properly or the Court feels that this person can make some useful submissions which can have bearing on final judgment, so that person is asked to put their views before the court.
They don't have obligation to be neutral. They come as knowledgeable experts who have done research either in favor or against the motion.
If you feel your opponents have got some strong amicus and you're appearing weak due to your weaker advocates and you feel court is favoring your opponent, you can try politely making a request tomorrow to court that you have a worry that the arguments from your side have not been properly presented and lot of text provided to court and lot of time has been spent just in favor of motion. So, I'd humbly request court that court may please consider appointing some amicus to represent the other side as well (and provide a recommendation also) so that milord can have the benefit of diverse opinion in critical matter like this with very wide ramifications.
At this point, court can tell us two things - STFU or thanks for your opinion, we will decide if we feel the need for it, so STFU. Take it!
Let me know in comments if you find any references which states Amicus has to be unbiased or has to represent interests of both sides or need to share *all* law points which support both for and against of the motion.
Lastly, make careful note of every argument raised by your heavyweight opponent amicus and then attack every argument brutally in the rejoinder at end of arguments. Hopefully, court will permit you to submit that, Maximus!
Comments
Post a Comment