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 ...
You're acting like the other side can import people with more intelligence from outside the jury pool.
Quit the fan-dance, counselor.
Correction: Because sometimes people and Sophists disagree on what common sense dictates.
You are very correct.
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Can't for the life of me understand how even State Supreme Court Justices can't understand "make no law........//..........prohibiting the free exercise thereof". IMHO if Congress has made no law to that affect, then by what authority, other than self imposed, does ANY court have to impose prohibition of free exercise of religion?
Which one of those "eye for an eye" verses?
Here's the one I like, From Matthew 5. Do you suppose that's the one the jurors were talking about?:
Matthew 5
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a TOOTH for a TOOTH:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
IMHO the First Amendment says otherwise regardless of what the court says and what has been done in the past. Seems the courts have been perpetuating and supporting each other in an unconstitutional order.
Of course we all know what the finding would be if anyone took the challenge to court.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Do you see any exemption to "Congress shall make no law or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; for when people are in court and sit on juries or do you understand it as I do that it applies 24/7 without limitations as to where and under what circumstances. The courts have no authority to arbitrarily turn our rights on and off at their discretion as we enter their courtroom. They may think they do and they may do it and get away with it but they DO NOT have that authority.
"Wouldn't the bible be a part of the trial......aren't witnesses still sworn in with their hand on it?"
Not in any courtroom I've been in. Nobody has to swear ANY oath on the Bible. Period. Any oath in the USA may simply be affirmed with no reference to any deity.
I wonder if they testify to tell the truth in Colorado if they use a bible or say so help you God. Men in black taking away our rights.
Seems like it. Maybe we should all change our screen names and start all over. Familiarity seems to breed contempt.
Ah. So you object to the idea of trial by a jury of your randomly selected peers, on grounds that they aren't smart enough to deliberate?
*chuckle* O those terrible sophists, constantly pointing out that the world is a complicated place. I suppose we could always go back to trial by ordeal.
The state legislature grants the courts authority to set their own procedural rules. Consequently, the fact that this is the court's procedural rule does, in fact, mean that it is the law. This rule is not unique to Colorado - it is in fact a long-standing rule applied to juries everywhere in America. As other posters have pointed out, this is nowhere near anything new.
The judge has a duty to keep irrelevant evidence which will taint the proceedings out of the courtroom. Example: a lawsuit about a car accident between two people, A and B. A says that B was following too closely; B says that A was driving recklessly and fishtailed on a wet road.
In the course of the proceedings, A's lawyer tells the jury: "Hey, did you know that B is having an extra-marital affair?" This has nothing to do with the auto accident, and is intended merely to sway the jury unfairly against B. The judge could tell the jurors to ignore it, but B is permanently, even if irrelevantly, tarnished as "the bad guy".
That is why before the trial starts, the lawyers fight out an agreement on what the trial is about, what the exact issues are, and what evidence will be presented. And the judge is there to act as referee, to essentially prevent both lawyers from breaking the agreement. It's not the jury's job to weigh the entire universe of evidence and decide if B is a bad person - it's their job to determine the facts of this particular narrow case.
It is outside material, like a newspaper, law book, map or any other item not part of the official trial record.
The First Amendment does not, and never was intended to, allow unregulated speech in courts of law, where special rules apply - rules of order, rules of evidence, and so forth. No one has a First Amendment right to barge into a courtroom to give a speech, or to introduce new evidence during jury deliberations. Nor do jury members have a First Amendment right to discuss an ongoing case with friends or family members.
Some people just can't get it into their heads that this decision was not about the Bible per se, but about introducing ANY outside material into jury deliberations. The word "Bible" triggers something that makes them impervious to facts. I think a lot of these people would be singing a different tune if the jurors had used excerpts from the Koran in reaching their decision.
"I wonder if they testify to tell the truth in Colorado if they use a bible or say so help you God. Men in black taking away our rights."
I have wondered the same thing. If they do use a Bible for an oath, it seems rather foolish to exclude it from a jury. However, I don't think anyone swears on a Bible or takes an oath "so help me God" anymore. Sounds to politically incorrect for a "modern" court of law.
"That is why before the trial starts, the lawyers fight out an agreement on what the trial is about, what the exact issues are, and what evidence will be presented. And the judge is there to act as referee, to essentially prevent both lawyers from breaking the agreement. It's not the jury's job to weigh the entire universe of evidence and decide if B is a bad person - it's their job to determine the facts of this particular narrow case."
I agree that is a prudent practice. I do wish it was possible for jurors to ask questions, even if the questions are passed through the judge for screening out improper questions.
"It is outside material, like a newspaper, law book, map or any other item not part of the official trial record."
I simply disagree.
Ah. So you are completely comfortable with BOTH sides routinely excluding juror candidates who are smart enough to deliberate from the small pool of your randomly selected peers.
Sophist.
We could also call the Sophists "post-modernists", if you're more comfortable with that appellation...
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.