Who Said Words Could Never Hurt Anybody?

In the state of Colorado, a Mennonite woman named Greta Lindecrantz was jailed for 12 days on Contempt of court charges during early March.  Greta had been working with defense attorneys regarding a case wherein the defendant, Robert Ray, allegedly ordered the murder of a witness from a separate trial.  Greta cited the Free Exercise Clause from within the First Amendment when she claimed that she could not serve as a witness in a death penalty case due to her religious affiliation.  While standing before the judge, she remarked, "I feel like I'm having to choose between you and God," and decided it was in her best interest to stick to her beliefs than testify for the case she acted as an investigator for.  Like many of the previous cases we have studied before, Greta was deeply entrenched in her beliefs and did not believe there was any possibility that she could testify.
Greta felt that if she was to partake in giving her testimony, she would be violating the beliefs she held due to the possibility that the defendant could receive the capital punishment directly from the words she would be uttering in court.  However, the judge in the case, Judge Brauchler did not share any sympathy towards Greta.  The judge was perplexed that a person who was hired as an investigator for what he believed to be $390,000 of taxpayers money could then shy away from the stand.  Especially since she had already received a subpoena from the state, and was expected to act in a concurring manner.  Judge Brauchler stated, "Now we have a person who injected herself into the case, took a ton of taxpayer money and now that she's asked to stand up and testify, she says she just can't do this," and found her in contempt of the court.  The judge believed it was indispensable for him to hear her testimony, as her investigation had been criticized and called into question by Ray, earlier in the case.  
Greta received a lot of support from fellow Mennonites.  People commended her for her willingness to deal with the jail time in order for her to maintain her morals.  Vern Remple, who serves as one of the pastors of the Beloved Community Mennonite Church stated, "It's been one of [our] key practices that we do not kill people for any reason. That means not going to war but the death penalty also comes into that," agreeing with her decision to refrain from testimony.  It seems that there is at least an agreement in the Mennonite community, that her testimony may indeed go against her right to free exercise.
Although Greta has since departed from her short stay at the Arapahoe County Detention Center, a question regarding subpoenas and free exercise has arisen.  Can a person's faith subordinate the mandatory nature of a subpoena, which forces any person of all faiths to have to testify.  A subpoena acts as a mandate for a person to testify in court, and while specific information can be expunged from the testimony, it is within the right of the court to not only expect, but enforce the action of testimony by Greta in this case.
While religious exemptions are an important facet of public policy, a subpoena involving an investigator, whom is directly affiliated with a case should not be given an exemption as the information during the testimony pertains the good of society in which a murderer could potentially be set free.  Since the information Greta learned through her investigation is what is being subpoenaed and not her beliefs or what she deems is right, there would be no reason for the court to allow her to be exempt from testifying.  Judge Brauchler showed how relieved he was when Greta decided to testify when he told NBC News, "She is now going to do what every other person who has ever received a subpoena to testify has been expected to do, and I appreciate that."  While definitely a backhanded comment, it is comprehendible to see where the judge is coming from as his perspective is understandable.  Greta would not be harming a person directly, as her information should not be biased or slanted.  Telling the truth in order for there to be a chance of justice in a murder case is more important, and subjugates her free exercise rights.  If what she has to say in court is that influential, it must be stated for it to be a fair trial.  Whether she is a Mennonite or not should not influence the substantial weight of a subpoena.