Freeman's trial has started. Court TV is carrying it (more background here). Two things bother me about what has occurred so far. First, Freeman's past criminal record has nothing to do with the validity of her religious exercise claim. It should have been excluded. Second, the prosecution is trying to put different interpretations of Islamic doctrine on trial, as if it matters whether Freeman's position is the "official" one of Islam. That should not be a factor; what matters is whether Freeman's belief is religiously based and whether she holds it sincerely. Besides, as I mentioned before, it's not the court's job to decide on religious doctrine, nor should it be. I'm afraid that this is going to turn into a show trial and that there will be more attention given to scoring points with the media than with genuinely seeing justice done.
In other notes:
ACLU Florida has posted a press release as well as a statement by Freeman.
Law professor Eugene Volokh has posted some commentary on the case.
Reader Marcia Oddi of the Indiana Law Blog reports that current Indiana law provides:
(d) The bureau may provide for the omission of a photograph or computerized image from any other license or permit if there is good cause for the omission.
IC 9-24-11-5 (d). It is not clear what "good cause" means or how one goes about seeking the omission of the photograph (Indiana, as you may remember, was the first state I found where the courts recognized a religious exemption for non-photo driver's licenses.)
Update 5/29: Court TV coverage of the second day of the trial and closing arguments. A decision is expected by the end of next week. You can also read a filing by Freeman's lawyers.
Law professor Eugene Volokh discusses the larger legal issues (also here)