FindLaw | Legal News & Information

This week's episode of The Practice focuses on the Pakistani custom of "honor killings." Donnelly defends Imaad Sharif, a Pakistani man, who is accused of commissioning his brother to murder his (Sharif's) wife because she was cheating on him. In Pakistan, one who commits adultery disgraces the family's honor. The tradition permits the adulteress's husband or other male relative to kill her. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, last year alone there were more than 1,000 such "honor killings" in Pakistan of women by their husbands or other male relatives.

The tribal-like custom of "honor killings" is prevalent in a number of Middle East societies and pre-dates Islam. The disgrace usually revolves around an illicit romance, or even rumors of impropriety. There are reports that these "crimes" have included immodest behavior or dress, being raped (yes, if you are a Pakistani woman and you are raped, you could then be killed for having disgraced your family's honor), leaving one's husband, and pre-marital friendships or flirtations with boys or men. This "shame" is considered to be brought upon the father's family.

In this episode, while the killer was the wife's brother-in-law, the killers are usually fathers or brothers of the women deemed to have gone astray. The murders are exceptionally brutal, with the perpetrators often cutting off the woman's head. Those guilty of the murder or generally given lighter sentences than are other killers. More information about "honor killings" can be found at the Amnesty International website.

While this barbaric tradition is both mind-boggling and captivating, it has virtually nothing to do with American criminal law. Similarly, the legal proceeding against Mr. Sharif seemed to be more an extended editorial than a trial. For instance, one of the witnesses, a police detective, testified at length regarding the wife's killing, the confession by the brother-in-law, the reasons why he had committed the murder, and the practice of honor killings. All of this testimony was obvious hearsay - the police officer had no knowledge of these facts and was merely repeating statements that others had made to him. In truth, as soon as the police officer said that he knew of no facts to suggest that Mr. Sharif had anything to do with his wife's murder, the case would have been dismissed.

I could go on, and on, and on, but it would not be fair. As Dan Rather would say, that would be like criticizing a fish for not having feathers. This part of the episode was never really intended to be realistic. It was intended to educate and to shock. It worked on that level.

The other trial reunited Eugene Young with Harlan Bassett, Esq., the lawyer with the perfect record of never winning a jury trial. Young had previously assisted Bassett with the trial of Marvin Blailock, who was accused of exposing himself in public. At that trial, the victim had testified that Blailock had a "sad, pathetic little penis" with no distinguishing physical characteristics. At Harland's insistence, Judge Hiller permitted Marvin to display his member to the members of the jury who saw that it was distinguished.

In this week's case, Bassett and Young defend Bassett's niece - a woman built like a "cottage" who was caught shoplifting. The niece ran away from the store before being caught but was identified by the store detective in a line-up. There is a question regarding the identification, because the store detective was shown a picture of the niece before identifying her. At trial, he "absolutely positively" identifies the niece as the very heavy woman sitting next to Bassett. Bassett, who is too clever for his own good, has hired a look-alike to sit next to him, and his niece is actually in the back of the courtroom.

Judge Hiller, appropriately, becomes incensed at Bassett for playing these games and orders the two women to sit together at counsel table. When the store detective again identifies the wrong woman (they have switched dresses), the case is dismissed. Ironically, Bassett is the one sent to jail for fifteen days for his contempt of court.

Not much to discuss here. The idea that Bassett had was a good one. Where an identification is important, witnesses rely too often on assumptions to help themselves out. It is not unusual for the witness to assume that the person sitting at counsel table or the one wearing the handcuffs is the defendant. Lawyers have to come up with creative ways to test the witnesses' ability to identify the defendant without running afoul of the rules.

Hopefully, next week we'll find ourselves once again defending a hometown murderer.

Past Reviews

Message Boards

Disclaimer