Sikh Culture Expert Testifies
By Charmayne Schmitz
Kevin McCarty, a UCD student, is accused of a hate crime resulting from an altercation with another student at a Davis bar in May, 2012. During a bar fight, he knocked off the turban of a man identified as a Sikh. On Thursday, March 7, an expert was brought in by the prosecution to answer questions about the Sikh religion.
Ashveer Pal Singh is a doctoral student at Stanford and has dedicated himself to studying his own Sikh heritage. His field studies are carried out in the Punjab region of India, which is 60% Sikh.
Uncut hair, covered by a turban, is a way of connecting to God. It identifies a person as a part of the Sikh community. No one is allowed to touch the turban. The turban is like a part of the body. It is personal space, sacred. The significance of the turban evolved from the historical persecution of Sikhs by other religious groups. At one time, scalps of Sikhs could be sold for a reward. It takes about 20 minutes to tie a turban. When tied correctly a turban is very secure. Knocking a turban off another’s head is extremely disrespectful.
Officer Sean Bellamy, from the city of Davis, also took the stand. The police were called by the victim. The officer explained to the jury that Mr. McCarty showed signs of extreme intoxication. This is what led to the officer’s initial decision to arrest the defendant for public intoxication. While the officer attempted to put on handcuffs, Mr. McCarty began showing signs of resisting. The resistance escalated and another officer had to assist. At one point, McCarty was pushed over the trunk of the patrol car and then thrown on the ground. Bellamy said it was done without great force but McCarty ended up with a bloody lip. He was taken away in an ambulance and cleared by a hospital before being taken to jail.
After interviewing the victim, Bellamy forwarded the case to the prosecution for review as a hate crime.
Final Witnesses Heard and Closing arguments
By Catherine McKnight
In the further jury trial of People v. McCarty on Friday, March 8, the last witnesses were heard and closing arguments were given by Deputy District Attorney Mr. Haspess and Deputy Public Defender Emily Fisher.
One of Mr. Singh’s friends was at Tres Hermanas the night of May 18, 2012, and witnessed part of the altercation between the defendant, Kevin McCarty, and Mr. Singh. He said he had noticed some commotion behind him near the bar and eventually witnessed Mr. Singh’s turban being knocked off. He does not remember hearing any racial slurs made by McCarty and describes the turban being knocked off by an upper hand swing. He did not see what previous witnesses describe as McCarty “grabbing” Singh’s turban and throwing it on the floor.
On cross-examination, the witness admitted that it seemed like an average bar fight.
The next witness was a friend of McCarty’s, who was celebrating with him that night. Ms. Fisher asked the witness about the relationship between McCarty and the victim, and he answered that they used to be friends but are not anymore. He has seen them verbally argue before, but never physically. He also said he was not able to see what happened with the police afterward, because McCarty was taken out of sight.
Mr. McCarty chose to testify and took the stand next. On direct, he admitted to knowing Mr. Singh from the dorms at UC Davis and that they gradually had a “falling out” and were not friends for very long. He said he did not wish to interact with him because he does not feel the need to do so with people he is not particularly fond of.
McCarty testified that he has never uttered any racial slurs to Mr. Singh or about the Sikh religion. His story is that he was standing at the bar in Tres Hermanas when Mr. Singh came up to him and extended his hand for a handshake. He then proceeded to tell him he did not want to shake his hand and Mr. Singh allegedly got in his face and yelled profanity.
McCarty then shoved Singh because he felt uncomfortable and that his personal space was being invaded. It turned into a shoving war between the two and he claims that, during the altercation, Singh’s turban accidentally got knocked off. He said that if he were going to get into a physical fight with someone else he would have attacked the body and would never knock someone’s turban off deliberately. He was not surprised at how angry Mr. Singh was because he understands that the turban is a symbol of his religion and faith.
As soon as he realized it was a bad situation, McCarty said he stopped and put his hands up. He claimed he would not want to insult him to that extent intentionally. The security guard at Tres Hermanos said that he was not going to contact the police because it did not seem necessary. Afterwards, the defendant claimed, he did not remember any events with the police. Fisher finished her direct examination by asking McCarty whether or not he considered himself a racist person and he responded, “no, not at all.”
On cross-examination, DA Haspess asked about McCarty’s relationship with Singh. McCarty confirmed that the “falling out” was mutual and that there has been no prior physical contact with the victim.
Haspess seemed to press the idea that McCarty has “anger issues.” The defendant began to look uneasy on the stand and his voice was shaky. Haspess also pushed the idea that Singh was easily identifiable because of his turban and that it is strange that McCarty is still friends with other members of the Sikh religion who do not wear turbans. McCarty would not consider what happened to be a bar fight because there was not much “fighting” going on.
During closing arguments, Haspess started off by saying that this case is about a “bully” with a temper who cannot control his anger when he drinks. He noted that McCarty has said racial slurs before and that the handshake was a gesture of friendship. For McCarty to deny something so friendly shows how badly he did not like Mr. Singh. He repeatedly said how Mr. Arg, a trusted Crew Chief for the U.S. Air Force, would not lie in a court of law. Mr. Arg testified that he saw McCarty grab the turban off and throw it on the ground.
Haspess ended with essentially calling McCarty a racist person with anger issues, and that each count has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, especially the hate crime.
During Fisher’s closing, she said there are three themes and that they all have to do with the Constitution. The first theme is alcohol and how this country somewhat glorifies it, especially during someone’s 21st birthday; it acts as a right of passage. The second theme is the First Amendment and the right to freedom of religion. She said, however, that there is much misinterpretation with this. The third theme is the right to a jury trial, and that the most reasonable interpretation of what actually happened is a bar fight.
The prosecutor, she claimed, is taking the worst possible scenario in this case. Mr. Singh was livid, and rightly so. However, Ms. Fisher said that this was only considered to be a hate crime to Mr. Singh. His emotions were running high because he was offended and had every right to be. What is difficult to do, though, is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that McCarty was indeed interfering with Singh’s civil rights and intentionally disallowing him his right to religion.
A question Fisher posed was, “Why would Mr. Singh want to go up to Mr. McCarty if racial slurs were said in the past? Why would he be so friendly?”
With the conflicting and unsure testimonies by the witnesses heard previously in this case, it is difficult to tell whether or not the jurors will find the defendant guilty on any of the counts. It should be especially hard to convict McCarty with a hate crime, given that nobody but Mr. Singh himself heard racial slurs before his turban was knocked off.
Closing arguments ended at 3:20 p.m. and the jury was sent out to begin deliberations. They will resume on Monday morning and the verdict should be in by the afternoon.
Please fix the title’s typo, thanks.
JD, i saw it as soon as i got to proofing this article – but not before you read it! Your comment wasn’t yet posted when i worked on this.
No worries – you do an excellent job.
♥♥♥
What a shame we don’t get to see what originally was here. Was it cute? Profane?
Question: What does the Sikh religion have to say about consumption of alcohol and hanging out in bars where”typical bar fights” occur by Sikhs?
roger bockrath
Perhaps I do not understand the intent of your question. It seems to me that you are implying that a Sikh could not both enjoy being at a bar/restaurant, and still be devoted to the symbolism of his turban. I know many Catholics who break with some of the teachings of the church, and would still be deeply offended to have their crucifix ripped from their neck and thrown to the ground, or some not so very observant Jews who would be offended by knocking off their yarmulke. I simply do not see his location as a test of Mr. Singh’s religious devotion.
JustSaying
Having been the victim of some quite entertaining spell check errors given my job, I will enlighten you.
It would appear that David’s none too helpful spell check replaced the intended word “Sikh” with the definitely unintended word “sick”.
JD and highbeam were right on it.
And David repeatedly read over the error for some reason.
I found it easy to miss also. I had read the article in its entirety once and looked at the several times before I “saw” it.