The victim.
Posted on 03/28/2005 12:36:05 PM PST by Sola Veritas
Condemned man gets life in prison for killing waitress Updated: 2:47 p.m. ET March 28, 2005 DENVER - The Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death sentence Monday of a man convicted of raping and killing a cocktail waitress because jurors consulted the Bible during deliberations. The court said Bible passages, including the verse that commands “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” could lead jurors to vote for death. The justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison without parole for the 1994 slaying of Rhonda Maloney. Harlan’s attorneys challenged the sentence after discovering five jurors had looked up Bible verses, copied some of them down and then talked about them behind closed doors. Prosecutors said jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Taking it even further, under what circumstances can a security be traded on the open market? What should be the requirements?
These laws aren't just written by lawyers. They're written by lawyers working for Congress after batteries of meetings with representatives from the relevant industries, law professors etc. To say that lawyers should be taken out of the equation is a recipe for utter chaos.
Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawyers. Kill them all, and start over.
Funny I didn't see that part of the article where it said a Bible was brought into the jury room.
I wouldn't be a bit surprized if the jurors were sequestered in motel rooms with Gideon Bibles in the night stands. Nothing to do but read the Bible, and maybe discussed it at breakfast.
Now that's real dangerous to the criminal justice system.
They'll be wantin' to ban those Gideon Bibles next thing you know.
On Vashon Island (Washington State) we used to have our own courthouse and our own judge, whom we elected. She was a good and fair judge, but had never been an attorney. We also had our own police force. They were generally fair as well, seeing as they shopped in the same stores that we shopped in, their kids attended the same schools as us, they went to the same churches, etc.
The county did away with our police force, and started shipping in officers from Burien (ours weren't writing enough tickets). The Burien police kept setting up radar traps in a place where the speed limit was actually rather obscure, due to the placing of the signs. The judge kept throwing out the tickets, telling the officers that if they wanted to write tickets for speeding in that one 200 foot stretch of road, they would need to move the signs.
Then the county decided that we didn't need a judge anymore, but couldn't fire her, so they closed our courthouse. Now, if anybody living on the island gets a ticket, they need to take the ferry and go to Burien to fight it. (I no longer live on the island).
And that was the last time that Vashon Island had it's own judge, and the last time that we had a judge that was not an attorney.
"Your belligerence on this proves that you have no business ever serving on a jury, since you simply won't follow simple directions."
I served on juries in the past and I was passive in the deliberations. I observed how other people came to conclusions, and it wasn't based on what the judge said. That isn't reality. However, I don't ever get seated on a jury anymore, because I tell the judge and trial attorneys up front that I am a licensed private investigator. Neither side want someone that can think independently.
I don't mean to appear "belligerent" per se. I just think the Supreme Court of Colorado made a stupid decision. I don't the Bible or discussions of it should be excluded from juries because it is folly. It may not be on lips, but it will be on minds. Also, I still maintain it is institutionalized anti-Bible bias.
I would like to know if a judge would have tossed out a case over this back in the 19th Century?
A securities lawyer that is part of a group that spends countless hours making sure law is so twisted and hard to follow, that you need a lawyer to figure it out? Or a law so vague that anyone can be prosecuted if one has a mind too? No thank you.
"Enough with the persecution complex. The rules don't exclude the Bible. They exclude all outside evidence."
And I have tried to explain here that, in my opinion, the Bible is not outside evidence. It is not "evidence" at all. To exclude it shows predujice against it.
"Oh Lord. . .so how could they convict for murder since the Bible says, "Thou Shalt not Commit Murder."
"Sheesh."
Try actually reading a Bible for once.
"This is not a question of rights, but of duties. A juror's duty is to the law. The law of Man, not that of God."
Your argument from "duty" is a good one, to which I can relate. However, I don't think it is ever right to instruct juries to follow man's laws and ignore God's. That has caused attrocities in war, and other examples you cited. I cannot imagine the founding fathers approving of such instructions being given to a jury.
Therefore, I don't think this should disqualify you for jury duty, that one holds scripture in higher regard that man made laws. In fact, those that instruct such are NOT fit to sit on the bench.
The Terri Schiavo case has so illustrated to many the problem with "Godless" courts.
"Any authority higher than a judge is strictly forbidden."
It always comes back to that, doesn't it? Judges rule not the people.
"Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawyers. Kill them all, and start over."
I wouldn't go that far. I have been privileged to know some that were really fine folk. I don't really dislike lawyers per se, I dislike this new religion I call "Lawyerism."
The victim.
If a juror is well enough versed in the Bible to paraphrase it from memory, should that be permitted?
Should a juror be prevented from studying the Bible during the course of a trial?
Jurors are most certainly not supposed to rely solely on the testimony and the judge's instructions. They are also supposed to rely on their own sensibilities and moral values.
We should have trial deliberations based on whatever happens to be important to the twelve people on the jury. They are to discuss the evidence and instructions, but they are also supposed to be informed by their own convictions and moral sense.
Frankly, more people are probably spared the Death Penalty by members of the more "Fuzzy Bunny" denominations that are condemned based on the fire-breathing Old Testament stuff.
"Killing is separate from murder and even the Bible makes this distinction is you actually read it and studied it, otherwise we, not some chair-bound pontificator like yourself, could never defend this great nation."
I have studied it deeply, and of course I know the difference. I don't understand why we are having this conversation? Actually, the prohibition in the 10 commandments is best translated "Do not murder." Capitol punishment for murder is not only allowed by the Bible, it is prescribed. This goes all the way back to when Noah got off the Ark (long before the 10 Commandments):
Genesis Chapter 9:5-6 (New King James Version)
"...From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man."
Commentary from the Schofield Bible:
"The highest function of government is the protecton of human life, out of which arises the responsibility of capital punishment. Man is not individually to avenge murder but, as a corporate group, he is to safeguard the sanctity of human life as a gift of God which cannot rightly be disposed of except as God permits..."
Maybe, I misread your first post. It was rather vague. However, you should know that this "chair-bound pontificator" served honorably in various (enlisted and officer) military roles over 15 years.
Do these offending quotes from the Bible have anything to do with the case? Anything to do with the evidence presented or the instructions?
I brought my Drivers License into the Jury Room, but that did not matter. It simply was not relevant to the evidence or instructions in the case. Similarly, these Bible quotes do not speak to any of the facts of the case, so they cannot introduce evidence not available to one and all. There are more Bibles than people in this country. They're hardly secret texts.
Uh now you've done it. Just couldn't resist tossing that grenade in could ya ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.