The Ryczek Firm, P.C.

07/04/2024

Georgia law says: "No party or witness shall be required to testify as to any matter which may incriminate or tend to incriminate such party or witness, or which shall tend to bring infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon such party or witness or any member of such party or witness’s family." O.C.G.A. 24-5-505. Another Georgia statute says we have a right not to testify if we are charged with a crime. O.C.G.A. 24-5-506. We also have a separate right under the Georgia and United States Constitutions not to testify it would tend to incriminate us. I don't think the prosecutor can grant a Georgia criminal defendant immunity and force witness testimony when the witness claims privilege under O.C.G.A. 24-5-505 due to it bringing infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon the witness or his family since immunity doesn't cure the disgrace, etc. Of course, the witness (and his lawyer) would have to show the Court a good faith basis for his claim. And, they would probably be entitled a proper ex parte examination in chambers without the prosecutor present to make their showing. This would be to protect the reasons why it might bring infamy, disgrace, etc., in the first place. I don't think 24-5-507 can compel testimony since it only cures the incrimination portion.

06/30/2014

Here is a rundown from someone who actually read the Hobby Lobby decision: Hobby Lobby and a few other named for-profit businesses-all of which conform to similar Christian values as a company policy-took issue with a particular mandate under the Affordable Care Act requiring for-profit entities to provide access to the morning after pill and other contraceptive methods that might prevent the continued viability of an already-fertilized egg (i.e. a form of abortion). None of the companies took issue with providing any other form of birth control to employees.

The main legal issue concerned whether these corporations should be considered persons under the RFRA. The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) requires that, if the government places a substantial burden on a person’s free exercise of religion, the govt must show that the burden not only furthers a compelling government interest, but also is the least restrictive way to further that compelling govt interest. 42 U.S.C. secs. 20000bb-1(a), (b).

SCOTUS held that such companies are persons for the purposes of RFRA analysis. It further held that the contraceptive mandate does substantially burden the companies’ free exercise of religion (Hobby Lobby exercises religion through the family that owns it ( see p. 21)). The root of the burden is that the owning families must either fund something like abortion (that violates the religious views of the owning families), or incur serious financial losses resulting from noncompliance. See pp. 20 – 38. SCOTUS went on to hold that the contraceptive mandate was not the least restrictive way to accomplish a compelling gov’t interest because the gov’t has options already in place to accommodate other entities. Notably, the gov’t had already carved out exceptions for non-profits. For this reason, SCOTUS held that Hobby Lobby and other companies are exempt from the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act, in a manner comparable to the exemption already granted to religious non-profits.

02/26/2014

Super Lawyers magazine features the list and profiles of selected attorneys and is distributed to attorneys in the state or region and the ABA-approved law school libraries. Super Lawyers is also published as a special section in leading city and regional magazines across the country. Consumers can…

02/15/2012

Super Lawyers provides Attorney Profile of Richard Ryczek, Jr. located in Lawrenceville, Georgia (GA) focused on Criminal Defense: DUI/DWI and Criminal Defense

01/22/2012