Another Divisive Church-State Issue

[Ralph]

Death sentence by jury that discussed Bible thrown out


DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Ruling that juries cannot turn to the Bible for advice during deliberations, a divided Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death penalty for a convicted murderer because jurors discussed Bible verses.

In a 3-2 vote on Monday, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life without parole for kidnapping Rhonda Maloney and raping her at gunpoint for two hours before fatally shooting her.

Authorities said Maloney, a 25-year-old cocktail waitress, was on her way home from work at a casino. Harlan later admitted killing her, but said he was addled by cocaine, alcohol and rage.

Harlan was sentenced to death in 1995, but defense lawyers learned that five jurors had looked up such Bible verses as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," copied them and discussed them while deliberating behind closed doors.

Defense attorney Kathleen Lord, arguing before the state Supreme Court last month, said the jurors had gone outside the law. "They went to the Bible to find out God's position on capital punishment," she said.

Prosecutors countered, saying jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.

Monday's ruling said the Bible and other religious writings are considered "codes of law by many" in Colorado. But noting that it takes a unanimous jury to impose a death sentence here, the court said "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages ... when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence."

In their dissent, Justices Nancy Rice and Rebecca Love Kourlis said the evidence did not show biblical passages influenced jurors. "It is important to note that the concept of extraneous information does not include the general knowledge a juror brings to court," Rice wrote.

Gov. Bill Owens said Monday's ruling was "demeaning to people of faith and prevents justice from being served."

Prosecutors were reviewing the decision and could ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider or could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jay Horowitz, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former University of Denver law professor, said the law bars jurors from considering evidence not presented at trial.

But he noted it was unreasonable to expect them to set aside moral standards when they step into a jury room, though there must be limits. "In fact, people do bring their background and thoughts and impressions, and you can't separate from that, and shouldn't try to," he said.

The conservative Christian group, Focus on the Family, had sharp criticism for the court.

"Today's ruling further confirms that the judicial branch of our government is nearly bereft of any moral foundation," said Tom Minnery, the group's vice president for government and public policy.

[JackC]

It is a rare case indeed in which jurors do not, in some way go, beyond the evidence presented in trial to reach a decision. They are people after all. In evaluating the evidence and making decisions, they bring their own life experiences, including their own views, biases and prejudices to the process.

This explains, for example, why so many black people thought that the evidence against OJ Simpson was weak. The OJ defense was able to sell what to me was an absurd claim, that the bloody glove was planted by Mark Furman in order to frame OJ. Many blacks embraced this theory because it was in line with their experience and views on how blacks are treated by police.

I guess what strikes me about this decision is why religion seems to have been being singled out. What if the jurors had never mentioned the Bible, but had said things to each other like - Hey when I grew up- my mom and dad always told me "an eye for an eye" This would be just as much "outside the law" as referring to the Bible. Would this type of discussion be sufficient to have 3 of the 5 judges reverse the jurors verdict. I doubt it.

[Barry]

Whether it's a solid decision on legal grounds or not, I hate to think of someone relying on what some schmo wrote two or three thousand years ago to determine whether someone should live or die.

Of course, I am opposed to the death penalty regardless. So what someone's parents taught them is no more justification than relying on the bible as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest]

Well, at least they did ONE thing right in Colorado.

Bravo Judge!!!!

Can they re-try him before a different judge and jury, make sure the bible toters are excused from being empaneled, and then hang him., fry him, shoot him, gas him or lethally inject him???

[Ralph]

Well, at least they did ONE thing right in Colorado.

Bravo Judge!!!!

Can they re-try him before a different judge and jury, make sure the bible toters are excused from being empaneled, and then hang him., fry him, shoot him, gas him or lethally inject him???

*****

No. By setting aside the death penalty the only option was the default sentence: life without parole.

[Corlyss_D]

c**k waitress

Whazzat, assuming the * means what I think it means?

five jurors had looked up such Bible verses as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth,"

They had to look this up? They had to look this up???

Monday's ruling said the Bible and other religious writings are considered "codes of law by many" in Colorado.

They were codes of law before they were religious writings.

But noting that it takes a unanimous jury to impose a death sentence here, the court said "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages ... when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence."

You mean they didn't have any affidavits to back up this claim?

"It is important to note that the concept of extraneous information does not include the general knowledge a juror brings to court," Rice wrote.

"Eye for an eye" is part of our cultural constitution regardless of religious persuasion. I'm beginning to think Colorado and Ward Churchill diserve each other.

Prosecutors were reviewing the decision and could ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider or could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

They can do this? I didn't think this was even legal.

Jay Horowitz, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former University of Denver law professor, said the law bars jurors from considering evidence not presented at trial.

It wasn't evidence.

But he noted it was unreasonable to expect them to set aside moral standards when they step into a jury room, though there must be limits. "In fact, people do bring their background and thoughts and impressions, and you can't separate from that, and shouldn't try to," he said.

Amen! Whatever happened to the concept of what a "reasonable" man or woman knows?

[Ralph]

c**k waitress

Whazzat, assuming the * means what I think it means?

*****It sure didn't come from ME!

five jurors had looked up such Bible verses as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth,"

They had to look this up? They had to look this up???

*****Yes because it's also found in most HMO manuals governing coverage too.

Monday's ruling said the Bible and other religious writings are considered "codes of law by many" in Colorado.

They were codes of law before they were religious writings.

***** They can be separately categorized?

But noting that it takes a unanimous jury to impose a death sentence here, the court said "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages ... when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence."

You mean they didn't have any affidavits to back up this claim?

*****As a matter of law jurors can not be subsequently polled as to what led to their decision unless there is an allegation of EXTRINSIC FRAUD (as in payoffs or threats from outside the jury room).

"It is important to note that the concept of extraneous information does not include the general knowledge a juror brings to court," Rice wrote.

"Eye for an eye" is part of our cultural constitution regardless of religious persuasion. I'm beginning to think Colorado and Ward Churchill diserve each other.

Prosecutors were reviewing the decision and could ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider or could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

They can do this? I didn't think this was even legal.

***** There is no appeal possible. First the decision is grounded on the state constitution so there's no federal question. Second, it was decided by the state's highest court. Pehaps Colorado permits a motion to reconsider - I don't know - but even where that exists it's virtually never granted in a criminal case.

Jay Horowitz, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former University of Denver law professor, said the law bars jurors from considering evidence not presented at trial.

It wasn't evidence.

*****Constructively it is because it's not part of the trial record. Many years ago a winsome lass who was a law student served on a jury in New York City. She pulled a copy of Gilbert's (a then popular review book series for law students) to explain the controlling law to her fellow jurors. Someone told the judge and it made tabloid headlines with the judge threatening to prevent the teary woman from ever being admitted to the bar (which he couldn't do) and then letting her off with a warning but AFTER ruling for a mistrial.

But he noted it was unreasonable to expect them to set aside moral standards when they step into a jury room, though there must be limits. "In fact, people do bring their background and thoughts and impressions, and you can't separate from that, and shouldn't try to," he said.

Amen! Whatever happened to the concept of what a "reasonable" man or woman knows?

What one "knows" can't be ruled out by judicial instructions. What one pulls out as "evidence" to support a viewpoint is another matter.

[Corlyss_D]

*****It sure didn't come from ME!

Sorry. I have been trying to remember to cite the newspaper when these articles are posted. I just forgot this time.

*****Yes because it's also found in most HMO manuals governing coverage too.

***** They can be separately categorized?

Sure. Here's how it works. When archeologists find the bible texts verbatim, only the texts are 3000 years older than the earliest known recorded bible texts, they have to come from some pre-Jewish civilization in the same region, proto-Semites mebbe. Well, we all know they had to be Gentiles, so that makes their religious codes purely social instruments since they didn't come from god, right? So there you have it. Secular laws!

***** There is no appeal possible. First the decision is grounded on the state constitution so there's no federal question. Second, it was decided by the state's highest court. Pehaps Colorado permits a motion to reconsider - I don't know - but even where that exists it's virtually never granted in a criminal case.

Many years ago a winsome lass who was a law student served on a jury in New York City. She pulled a copy of Gilbert's (a then popular review book series for law students) to explain the controlling law to her fellow jurors. Someone told the judge and it made tabloid headlines with the judge threatening to prevent the teary woman from ever being admitted to the bar (which he couldn't do) and then letting her off with a warning but AFTER ruling for a mistrial. [/b]

You did say you were writing these down, right?