Bruce H. Russell, II, P.C.

02/03/2026

07/06/2025

Rabbi Seixas expressed his vision of an American government in terms that have become a part of the national lexicon. He beheld in the United States:

A Government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance but generously affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of citizenship: – deeming every one, of whatever nation, tongue or language equal parts of the great Governmental Machine:–This so ample and extensive federal union whose basis is Philanthropy, mutual confidence, and public virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth the Armies of Heaven, and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatsoever seemeth [to Him] good.
Seixas closed his letter to Washington by asking God to send the “Angel who conducted our forefathers through the wilderness into the Promised Land [to] conduct you through all the difficulties and dangers of this mortal life.” He told Washington of his hope that “when like Joshua full of days, and full of honour, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly Paradise to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immortality.”

Not surprisingly, it is Washington’s response, rather than Seixas’s epistle, which is best remembered and most frequently reprinted. Washington began by thanking the congregation for its good wishes and rejoicing that the days of hardship caused by the war were replaced by days of prosperity. Washington then borrowed ideas–and some of the words–directly from Seixas’s letter:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.

For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.
Washington’s concluding paragraph perfectly expresses the ideal relationship among the government, its individual citizens and religious groups:

May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while everyone shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.

Washington promises no sanction to bigotry, and no assistance to persecution.

07/10/2020

IMPORTANT CHANGE TO THE LAW PERTAINING TO JURY SELECTION IN VIRGINIA

The 2020 term of the Virginia General Assembly saw several major changes to our Criminal Law, but perhaps none were so significant as an alteration to the scope of questions defense attorneys are allowed to ask potential jurors. The new rules allows lawyers to inform the jury, as part of the selection process, as "to the potential range of punishment to ascertain if the person or juror can sit impartially in the sentencing phase of the case."

This serves a two-fold purpose: 1) to allow a defense advocate to educate the panel as to the (often very high) stakes of their decision, and 2) to potentially locate and excuse jurors who would have no qualms about recommending a lengthy sentence. This promises to be a very powerful tool in the criminal defense arsenal, and could revolutionize this type of trial practice in Virginia.

---

§ 19.2-262.01. Voir dire examination of persons called as jurors.
In any criminal case, the court and counsel for either party shall have the right to examine under oath any person who is called as a juror therein and shall have the right to ask such person or juror directly any relevant question to ascertain whether the juror can sit impartially in either the guilt or sentencing phase of the case. Such questions may include whether the person or juror is related to either party, has any interest in the cause, has expressed or formed any opinion, or is sensible of any bias or prejudice therein. The court and counsel for either party may inform any such person or juror as to the potential range of punishment to ascertain if the person or juror can sit impartially in the sentencing phase of the case. The party objecting to any juror may introduce competent evidence in support of the objection, and if it appears to the court that the juror does not stand indifferent in the cause, another shall be drawn or called and placed in his stead for the trial of that case.

A juror, knowing anything relative to the fact in issue, shall disclose the same in open court.

2020, cc. 157, 588.

The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired.

01/26/2019

I try to avoid driving school for my clients...

clickventure