Court spares killer over jury's use of Bible

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.

He was not set free, he just did not receive the death penalty.

Don't confuse them with the facts; it gets in the way of their persecution complex.

The sentence was changed because some jurors brought outside materials into the jury room.

What I don't understand is why the Colorado Supreme Court didn't order another jury empaneled and asked to decide on the sentence alone.

"That is simply incorrect. Juries are supposed to look at the facts and instructions in light of their own experience and moral framework."

There are two questions in any trial - questions of fact and questions of law. The judge answers questions of law. Juries are supposed to bring their experience to bear to determine the probability of a putative fact being true. For captital punishment, those facts are usually along the lines of whether the defendant poses a continuing danger to the community (including guards and other inmates). Whether God exists and His/Hers/Its position is wholly irrelevant to the factual determination of the jury. Thus, it has no place in the deliberations.

"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."

Yep. That's why they ask you if you have any religious issues during voir dire. If you have no religious issues applying the law as you are told to, your religious concerns are at an end. Facts like whether the defendant committed all of the elements of a crime have no religious element now do they?

"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."

No, that's not what the jury is there for at all. The jury serves as a factfinder. And yes, you don't want the jury going beyond what the judge allows in because you don't want the jury hearing garbage from the defense or the prosecution that the jury is not allowed to hear. The law prohibits the jury from hearing about some things (like the fruits of an illegal search), so the judge has to determine if a specific piece of evidence falls into one of these categories. That's not "too much authority" that's the way the system is set up.

Of course the jury is not to consider additional information, such as what they hear on the street or see in the newspaper, because only certain evidence is presented at trial. This is completely appropriate. But that is not what we are talking about here, is it?

There is no requirement or expectation that jurors not have any "religious issues". If that were a requirement, then it would be impossible to seat a jury in lots of jurisdictions in this country. Now, if a juror is incapable of considering a death penalty in a capital case, for religious issues or any other reason, they are excluded. But that is not what we are talking about here, is it?

Juries are permitted and expected to discuss a whole range of issues during deliberations. They are not limited to certain topics and matters of fact alone. Of course, certain facts not presented at trial that are excluded and the opinions of other people not on the Jury are exluded, which is why the Jury is not to discuss the case with people outside the Jury Room. But that is not what we are talking about here, either, is it?

Here is a useful test of your position: If the Bible verses had been recited from memory instead of copied down, would there be an issue here at all? Why is it important for the deliberative process that they be recited from memory, instead of read off a slip of paper? Why is that fact important enough to throw out the finding of the Jury and substitute the opinion of the Judge?

I submit to you that if the Bible verses had been recited from memory there would have been no basis for this decision. I fail to see how the fact that they were jotted down on a slip of paper is at all relevant, except as a technical violation of a rule. But that technical violation does not have any substantive effect, so why should it result in reversal?

"The Colorado Supremes have said in effect Christians need not apply for jury duty."

Yes, the very class of person's best suited to serve on jury duty. It is anti-Christian bias, no matter how many try to defend the decision. The good news is that it was a split 3-2 decision. I suspect the "3" will be seeing the door when a vote to keep them in office comes up. James Dobson is headquarted in Colorado, and he is "unhappy" about this ruling.

I was whacking on lawyers for being "actors" on this thread yesterday. This thread proves my point:

At issue at the conference was whether the juries should be allowed to hear about Gilardi's disability. Prosecutor Denise Merrifield said Gilardi's handicap was part of the reason why the suspects targeted the store, but defense attorneys said it would only serve to build sympathy

You can't bring "outside information" into the deliberation room, and you apparently can't bring relevant information into the courtroom, either... ;-)

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.