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 ...
Wouldn't Louisiana do?
Somebody gets it. I'll only be dictated to by lieawyers at gunpoint - which I guess describes the judicial system in this country very nicely.
In the 19th Century, a murder case was tossed out because the judge (Bean, naturally) "cound'nt find no law against killin' a Chinaman." Is that the sort of amateur so-called jurisprudence we wish to have?
Now I know how to get out of jury duty: bring a Bible to the selection, LOL!
"In the 19th Century, a murder case was tossed out because the judge (Bean, naturally) "cound'nt find no law against killin' a Chinaman." Is that the sort of amateur so-called jurisprudence we wish to have?"
Oh, you are so very clever.(eyes rolling). I was talking about something a little more sophisticated than a frontier judge. What would the 19th Century SCOTUS have ruled? They were closer to understanding the original intent of the document than us.
"The court probably isn't a big fan of jury nullification either."
Roger that Marine! The Bravo Sierra these courts produce sometimes is just too much.
INTREP - see my tag line
Jurors are not supposed to be influenced by anything other than the evidence they're presented with. Their personal feelings should have no bearing on their verdict. The jurors were in the wrong here.
Some people can look without seeing, listen without hearing, and in the instance of this response both of those human frailties apply. The jury room may be a place where biblical teaching may indeed motivate a member and that member may use whatever such argument is compelled by such thought. The tangible book itself cannot be in the jury room as a reference or to justify or add ostensible authoritative support for one's argument. In this instance it would be no different and equally impermissible as if one juror brought in yesterday's editorial with an opinion as to how a case should be decided. The fact that it is a revered book doesn't cloak it with any different import or significance for that specific purpose.
You are apparently laboring under the belief that the majority of lawyers are trial lawyers.
Wouldn't the bible be a part of the trial......aren't witnesses still sworn in with their hand on it?
And then the judges will just rule it unconstitutional, and go back to business as usual....
Judicial activism is what is ruining this country.
"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.
Jurors shouldn't be instructed to disregard divine law. Anyone whose views thereof are incompatible with the law of the state should be weeded out in jury selection.
In the instant case, the issue isn't whether people obey or even proclaim God's law, as they understand it; the issue is that they looked it up and shared their findings. That kind of independent inquiry is not a right of jurors in any jurisdiction I know of.
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.
I can't imagine that the Founders would accept that questions of secular law should be decided by the biblical interpretations of amateur theologians. If the law is profane, the place to change it is the ballot box, not the jury box.
I accept that in extreme cases, the jury must rule sideways to, or even contrary to, the written law; an unjust law cannot be justly applied. But accept that you're breaking the law. Stare it down, and accept consequences, Dr. King was arrested and jailed on that principle. He did not physically resist arrest, but rather used his arrest to challenge the American conscience and get the law changed.
If the secular law conflicts with the divine, the solution is to fix the former, not to ignore or discard it on an ad hoc basis. You may or may not win. No one said democracy would be easy.
In the case of wartime atrocities, a soldier is not only allowed but required to refuse unjust orders. The secular law is sufficient in itself, and obeying it doesn't require any metaphysical justification. If there's a problem with the UCMJ, fix it. Don't ignore it or pretend it doesn't apply.
Therefore, I don't think this should disqualify you for jury duty, that one holds scripture in higher regard that man made laws.
If you're called to serve on a jury, your job is to rule under the applicable "man-made" laws. If you canot do so, and will instead rest your decision on your own interpretation of the Bible, you are an unfit juror.
In fact, those that instruct such are NOT fit to sit on the bench.
Judges have to instruct juries on the law. That's why they sit in the tall chair. They don't write the law; we elect people to do that.
The Terri Schiavo case has so illustrated to many the problem with "Godless" courts.
I should have known that, no matter what the ostensible topic, this would come up. If there is a problem with the rulings in re Schiavo, the problem isn't that the judges were godless, but that they were lawless. If there's a conflict between the laws of Man and those of God, however you interpret the latter, the answer is in the legislature.
"INTREP - see my tag line"
I have a FRAGO from the highest level of command(God) brother Chaplain: "Keep up the good work - detailed instruction to come directly from HQ later when you next pray!"
"If you're called to serve on a jury, your job is to rule under the applicable "man-made" laws. If you canot do so, and will instead rest your decision on your own interpretation of the Bible, you are an unfit juror."
Nothing eloquent to say in reply, other than I disagree. I believe that disregarding divine law has got us in the pickle we are in. I won't go to "war" over this with you, but I will use the legislative process to oppose your views and attempt change.
What limited experience I have had with the "law" as a private investigator is that it is ridiculous in the way it has been interpreted. So, many times I had read the original legislation and seen how the judicial process as incredible twisted the original intent.
OK - Now let me back off for a bit. In truth, right now I am upset about Schiavo and obviously my rhetoric is "off." I understand the reasoning behind a jury only using what they are presented in the court room, I just have problems with it - the Bible issue is just a "right now" manestfation. Forget about the Bible issue for a moment. At times when I have sat on a jury, it bugged me no end that I couldn't ask questions of witnesses, or that I did not get to hear about a defendent's past history unless he was put on the stand. If I am charged with making a decision that will brand a person for life (a felony conviction) or may deprive them of life. I want to hear it all, and know how the information was derived and received.
The court room procedures of today is too controled by the lawyers present. They go to great efforts to keep you from hearing everything, or to only hear want they want you to hear. I want to hear all the information available and weigh it myself.
Got to cut this off, my son is up and I need to get him and me to bed. Take care.
Just because this is the court's rule does not mean that this is the law or even that it is appropriate. Jurors are not to bring in newspaper articles or materials that could be used as evidence in the case, but that prohibition could not be applied to the Bible, or to anything written thousands of years ago.
Unless the Bible was a point of evidence in the case, the fact that certain jurors had written passages from the Bible is simply irrelevant, and does not require the conviction be overturned. This is simply the Judge substituting his judgement for the Jury's, as if he knows better. I don't know why we should even bother with juries if there is not going to be a presumption that their rulings are to be binding.
That is simply incorrect. Juries are supposed to look at the facts and instructions in light of their own experience and moral framework. That is why you have juries in the first place. If juries are to be limited to looking at facts in a vacuum, they serve no purpose. There is no requirment that they do so.
For many people, the Bible is an important part of their life experience and moral framework. It is completely appropriate that they should consider the Bible when serving on a jury. That is what they are supposed to do.
Requiring that jurors rely only on what is said in the court-room gives far too much authority to the Judge and the judicial system. The people of the Jury are supposed to "be themselves" and serve as a reality check.
(from another thread on this)
it still begs the question, is this reason enough to comute the sentence?
No, I was specifically talking about the creatures who inhabit the nation's courtrooms. We are of course aware that most of the denizens of Capitol Hill and its immediate environs are part of the infestation, and that their gig is also money and power:
"There's a world of people here in Washington who enjoy taking other people's money and making a lot of money off of it. People in public service come to Washington making less than $100,000 a year and walk out of town making $3 million." - Brain Lamb (C-Span CEO)
If you can believe it, it's even less work to do the Washington thing (if you're a natural-born grifter), AND you get to boink all the best-looking babes in the country...
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.