Can They Do That?
Render Unto Caesar What is Caesar's and Unto God What is God's
August 21, 2020
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints keeps secrets and suppresses criticism. So do many other faiths. Catholics and Muslims both come to mind. When church and state collide, sparks fly. The United States Constitution is clear; churches cannot interfere with the legal and constitutional administration of justice.
Recently, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints released a letter on the subject of “Involvement in Legal Proceedings.” It’s no coincidence that the letter was dated and released on the second day of Chad Daybell’s Fremont County, Idaho preliminary hearing. Ninety-six percent of the population of Rexburg, Idaho, are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Church’s letter reminded “leaders and members of a long-standing policy that Church leaders should not involve themselves in civil or criminal cases regarding members in their units, quorums or organizations without first consulting with the Church legal counsel.”
Lori Vallow Daybell’s attorney, Mark Means, issued an open response, finding the “correspondence alarming and concerning…”
Means is right. Clearly, the letter is intended to protect the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Church doctrine is implicated in the Lori Vallow/Chad Daybell case. Both Lori and Chad are lifelong members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and their odd beliefs are twists on doctrines traced directly to the Church and the teachings of the first Prophet, Joseph Smith. While it follows that the Church would like to distance themselves from Chad and Lori as much as possible, the Church is not entitled to protect itself at the expense of the administration of justice, and to discourage members and leaders alike from involvement in civil and criminal cases serves to undermine justice. There is no assurance that consultation with Church lawyers, whose sole purpose is to represent the Church, will serve either the individual or justice. Just the opposite may be true. It’s not hard to imagine circumstances under which an organization like this that holds so much sway over the daily life of its members, their livelihoods, and their social connections, could offer enticements or threats to discourage members from testifying. Mr. Means is correct – that constitutes witness tampering.
Mark Means' letter, makes many relevant and important points. Those who doubt Mr. Means' intelligence or legal knowledge should take a closer look at his letter.
In my opinion, the issue boils down to two points: 1) The United States Constitution guarantees the separation of Church and state and governs the criminal justice system, and 2) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has historically recognized that separation. Let’s examine both points.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as amplified in the case of Reynolds v. the U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878), ” has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” Many scholars point out that the first amendment is a guarantee of freedom from religion as much as it is a guarantee of the freedom of citizens to practice religion as they choose. The operation of our government and the enforcement of its laws are secular and thereby available to everyone, regardless of their religion. While many argue that our government is based on the Judeo-Christian ethics of its founders, none would argue that ecclesiastic law should supplant the secular administration of justice.
The United States Constitution enumerates the rights afforded to every citizen, regardless of race or religion. Those rights, contained in the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendment include:
A pretrial hearing or grand jury in felony cases.
Insures a person can’t be tried for the same crime twice
Protects a person from self-incrimination.
Assures fair proceedings in any case where an individual’s life, liberty, or property are at risk.
Mandates compensation when the government takes your property.
Protects people in their homes against unreasonable search and seizure.
Requires search warrants.
Insures the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury.
Assures an individual the right to be informed of the charges against him or her.
Guarantees the right to counsel and to call witnesses.
Requires that reasonable bail be set.
Requires sentences that are commensurate with the crime.
The Fourteenth amendment expanded the rights to all the states and ensured the due process of law in all actions, and equal protection under the law to all citizens.
These are rights that cannot be abridged by any church.
The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the government of the United States is fraught with conflict. The early Church and its doctrines were unpopular, and Church members found themselves run out of several settlements before they landed in Utah. When the Saints settled in Utah, it was not a state. In fact, Brigham Young intended to form a sovereign LDS state, which would be governed by the Church. But as surrounding states began incorporating and joining the union, that dream became less plausible. Many in Utah saw the benefit of U.S.statehood, but the federal government made clear that statehood was not possible as long as the Church continued to sanction plural marriage. In September 1890, President Wilford Woodruff released the following manifesto:
“To Whom It May Concern:
Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—
I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.
One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I heareby declare my intention to submit to those laws, to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.”
Woodruff’s manifesto is seen as recognition that the law of the land must be observed and obeyed. When discussing the separation of church and state, many followers of the New Testament, including members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, cite Matthew 22:21: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” The LDS doctrine, as set out in Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, Desert Book Co., 1954, page 339, amplifies that scripture by directing the faithful to “obey every law of God including the constitutional laws of the land in which he lives and do so with a good and honest heart.” The constitutional law of our land assures that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront his or her accusers and the witnesses against him or her.
All this leads to the conclusion that, as Mark Means points out, the Church should not be directing its members and leadership not to “involve themselves” in civil or criminal matters without first consulting Church legal counsel. Further, Means points out, rightly, that the Church should not be pressuring the faithful to obstruct justice by defying legally- issued subpoenas. (“However well-intentioned, Church leaders sharing information in legal proceedings can sometimes be misinterpreted and even damaging. Such sharing can be especially harmful to victims and their families. Following the Church’s policy also keep the Church from being inappropriately implicated in legal matters.”)
Means also points out that the Church’s legal counsel has no duty of confidentiality or care to the member consulting them, and people consulting with those lawyers have no protection under the clergy-penitent privilege either. The Church’s legal counsel represents the Church, not the member; and the Church counsel must protect their client. Church members who received a subpoena to testify in court should consult independent legal counsel.
It’s clear (and perhaps understandable) that the Church wants to control the message coming out of the legal proceedings. It’s also clear that the Church has no place in those proceedings and should not be attempting to influence whether their members appear as witnesses.
It’s also clear that the Church’s letter may make finding a fair and impartial jury may be more difficult than ever and may support the defense’s motion to change venue to someplace with less intense Church influence.
Many have asked about whether the letter could be the basis of a mistrial. Mistrials are generally the product of something that happens during the trial and calls into question whether the defendant can get a fair trial. Some reasons would be because of juror misconduct, or because some piece of evidence was presented to the jury that tainted their ability to make a fair decision (especially if it occurred accidentally). Mistrials are also called if the jury can’t come to a conclusion and becomes deadlocked.
