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 ...
They should have just quoted the Clint Eastwood movie where Clint says "a head for an eye ..."
As a juror, am I obligated to answer their questions or be forced to repeat what happened in the deliberation room?
I wouldn't. In fact, I'd seize the opportunity to educate this juror on the woeful shortcomings of his religion, particularly with regard to the fact that the jury process is completely alien to Islam.
You know what? The Koran is not the Bible. It just isn't. But if a juror brought in Confucius, I wouldn't care much at all.
My sister-in-law used to clerk for a CO supreme court justice. I would beg to differ since I am familiar with their hostility towards religion.
You don't have to talk to them, but I imagine that someone on this jury was the first to bring this up. I certainly would have if I'd seen other jurors using outside sources.
Deciding guilt or innocence doe snot require a bible.
Again, if they are deciding on sentencing, what is the guideline? Punishment can legally range from some measure of time in prison to death.
It's up to the jury to decide. It is THEIR OPINION. Again, what do they use, a coin? Sure, if a guy is a Moslem, he may consult the Koran. He may even relay what the Koran says to the rest of the jurors.
The jurors have the freedom to sentence him to death or life in prison. WHAT DO THEY USE TO DEVELOP THEIR OPINIONS? NOTHING?
Maybe, but see #65.
You've never sat on a jury, I gather.
I couldn't even get a copy of Acoustic Guitar (nice mag, BTW) in. I was bummed, but hardly screaming that the courts were practicing musical bigotry.
One of the reasons for banning outside materials for juries is to eliminate this type of distraction.
No one is knocking the Bible in this opinion, it's a book everyone should read and follow. But it has absolutely no role to play in a jury's consideration of fault in a civil case or guilt or sentence in a criminal case. If it were it were otherwise, a prosecutor or defense counsel in a criminal case or a plaintiff or defendant in a civil case could use the courtroom lecturn as a preaching pulpit to inspire jurors to do this or that because the Bible, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or whatever may be the book of some other religion to based their decision on.
The court is not only correct, it was compelled to issue the opinion and rule the way it did----all of the FR howls of protest to the contrary notwithstanding. Juries just cannot be allowed to act on their own like this...
How long will you pretend she is alive? Mere existence and a physiology process does not equal life. Who would accept such a miserable existence for themselves or one they loved? Would you condemn her to another decade, two, five? When is enough enough?
After rereading the story I would say that I would agree it would be wrong to bring copies into the deliberating room. But I think if someone wants to consult The Bible for counsel/guidance during deliberations, they should be allowed to do this. When ever I wrestle with the difficult decisions in my life I grab The Book that gives me counsel. It's not as if it were a newspaper.
"A ruling can be overturned because of something that did or did not happen in the courtroom, new evidence, police procedures,etc., but it cannot legally be thrown out because of how the jury arrived at its verdict.
"
Actually, you are incorrect. Jury misconduct can lead to the overturning of a verdict. This jury behaved stupidly. Under our system, only the applicable laws and the evidence presented in court may be used in deliberations.
Juries used to be expected to judge the law as well as the evidence in the case. Not any more. Today, the judge orders the jury, and sometimes will even reverse a jury, if s/he disagrees with the jury decision.
Grand juries were originally intended to provide some protection against power-mad prosecution. Not any more. Today, whatever the DA says is what happens.
That wasn't Shakespear it was a lunatic character (he would be part of the Mob around FR today) in his play. Big difference. Shakespeare used lawyers regularly to sue people for fraud etc.
And you would have been kicked off the jury. It's not your job to lecture somebody on their religion during jury deliberations.
If you can't decide the merits of the case, you have no business on a jury.
They're not unfamiliar with them. They just don't like them, and feel they can do whatever the hell they want in a jury room.
This website is losing its collective mind.
How I wish the Judge read the bible in Terri's case, so she could have a life sentence instead of death.
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.