Display Of 10 Commandments Causes Problems In Murder Trial - He Agrees To Cover Display During Trial

WRAL ^ | February 3, 2004

[yonif]

NASH COUNTY, N.C. -- The latest fight over the display of the Ten Commandments found its way into a Nash County murder trial.

Jeremy Hayes said after three long years, he is relieved to see Andre Edwards, who is accused of killing Hayes' wife, Ginger Hayes, and leaving his then-11-month-old son for dead, going to trial. However, before Edwards walked into the courtroom, his attorneys fought to make changes to the courtroom walls.

[yonif]

[yonif]

We are covering our heritage as well.

[BenLurkin]

Astonishing.

If "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is inconsistent with the civil law - why is this person being tried for murder?

[winstonchurchill]

What a great story. Modern man, failing to repeal the 10 commandments, covers them over lest they give offense -- to a murderer.

[Dog Gone]

It wasn't to prevent offense to a murderer. It was to prevent offense to a judge who hears the appeal of a murder conviction.

[Lady Eileen]

They may cover the Ten Commandments...but the Law of God is written on everyones heart...and that cannot be removed.

[winstonchurchill]

It was to prevent offense to a judge who hears the appeal of a murder conviction.

OK, I give up. What's the offense to the appellate judge(s)? Assume arguendo the current liberal argument de jour, that the display constitutes an 'establishment of religion', how does that transmute to an 'unfair trial'? The jury isn't supposed to know that murder is against the law? Or does it convey that since God is against murder too, that raises the stakes? Just another stupid and ill-thought-through 'judicial' (in loose terms) decision.

[cajun-jack]

to commit "legal" murder and never be questioned on it...you have to get your victim pregnant and driver her off a bridge in a drunken stupor...swim to the far shore..race home and call your lawyer...murder is not a question, much less an issue and you can even get re-elected to the senate time and again.

[armymarinedad]

It will be a long trial just because of jury selection. How long will it take to find twelve people who have never heard "Thou shalt not kill".

[Dog Gone]

I'm not going to try to defend the decision, but the thought process is something like this.

You're bringing in the weight of God by posting those commandments, and putting it into the jury's face. You're either intimidating them into finding someone guilty of killing, or poisoning the whole process with an unconstitutional display of religious material on government property.

Given the recent judicial history regarding the commandments, the trial judge probably thought he'd just avoid the entire issue for this trial.

[TigersEye]

Or does it convey that since God is against murder too, that raises the stakes?

No, it doesn't raise the stakes it's just cruel.

Posting the opinion of a rightwing religious zealot (one could argue The rightwing religious zealot), like God, is nothing less than bigoted harrassment of the murderer. He is the victim of his murdering chimpanzee ancestral DNA heritage and the idea of trying to make him feel responsible, much less guilty, of his actions is inhuman. Or inchimpoid. Errr ahhhhh .... unGaia.
Well you know ... it's just mean.

Let's try to get through this trial without hurting anyone's feelings. OK?

[.30Carbine]

an unconstitutional display of religious material on government property.

FYI - it is no more unconstitutional to display religious material
anywhere in these United States
than it is to display a Nike logo or a peace symbol.
Get a grip:
The meaning of the First Amendment is just this -
a religious word is not to be singled out and banned
simply because it is religious.
This is called freedom
and is known as "the free exercise clause" in our Constitution.

[.30Carbine]

INTREP

[TigersEye]

bttt