Court spares killer over jury's use of Bible

MSNBC ^ | March 28, 2005 | Unknown

[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.

[Steve_Seattle]

"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."

The ironic thing is that the people who are so angry about this decision are the same kind of people who caused this to happen in the first place. If they'd followed their instructions and kept outside materials from their deliberations, the original sentencing probably would have been upheld. At the very least, the defense attorneys would have had to find some other reason for appealing.

[OneTimeLurker]

"This case has nothing to do with prejudice against the Bible. The ruling would have been the same if the jury had consulted a book by (secular liberals) Alan Dershowitz or Laurence Tribe."

What part of don't consult outside material don't people here understand? Oh and I really see the connnection to Terri too.

[BROKKANIC]

Who doesn't know that "an eye for an eye..." verse?

[Steve_Seattle]

The reason behind the rule against outside materials is that juries are to base their decision solely on the evidence presented in court, evidence available to both sides, and ruled admissable by the judge. If this rule did not exist, juries could basically play attorney and introduce their own evidence apart from the real attorneys and apart from the rules of evidence and apart from the scrutiny of the judge. That would be a recipe for chaos, e.g., "Your honor, we the jury find the defendant guilty based on an article we read in the Weekly World News."

[jeremiah]

We need to rid ourselves of the judges and lawyers. A society does not need professional liars and the judges could be replaced by election like mayors and councilmen. Rewrite the laws to make them understandable by laymen, and get rid of law schools. The system of precedence and review of laws is out of date, and probably is anathema to a free society.

[Sola Veritas]

"Juries just cannot be allowed to act on their own like this..."

They do worse things...the O.J. Simpson trial.

Do you actually think that when I delibrating a case, or anyone of strong religious conviction, that I am not actively reliely on scripture to guide me in a decision process? I may not have the Bible in my hand, but it is still their in my heart(mind). You can't take that away from me, or anyone else for that matter.

The idea of keeping things out of the Jury room is in reference to specific things pertaining to the case such as newspaper accounts, etc. so as you have said only the testimony and evidence presented in court can be considered. A Bible only speaks in general terms. Plus, the ONLY bearing it had on the deliberations would be if some were hesitant, after determining guilt, to impose a death penalty for murder based on religious grounds - if that hesistancy was based upon their background. Then it would be germane. When elected officials take the oath of office on a Bible, you tell me it doesn't belong in a court of law or a jury room?

I think that is absurd. It is indeed institutionalized anit-bible nonsense. The very basis of western law is the Bible.

[MWS]

Who knows.

Maybe they were going to quote "Let he without sin throw the first stone." That could have led to a life sentence.

Better kill him to teach them a lesson. ;^)

[Sola Veritas]

"The system of precedence and review of laws is out of date, and probably is anathema to a free society."

Especially so since the legal system is such a bureaucracy now. Obviously precident has to have some weight, I just think it is overdone.

[AmishDude]

Yes. Do you know the play?

(Shakespeare often used "unpopular" characters to make points that he wanted to make.)

[El Cid]

It certainly says that you don't know what "jury instructions" are, or what the difference between findings of law and findings of fact are.

And where exactly did our "law" come from? From whom was it derived? The Founders of our country understood this basic fact (and would be spinning in their graves if they knew the degree to which we've regressed). As an example, consider that bastion of higher learning:
"In 1634 when Harvard College was founded, the governors of the school adopted a seal and motto which was intended (according to Josiah Quincy, president of Harvard in the early nineteenth century) to represent the fact that truth was to be found only in the Scriptures, not in words of man’s devising. Within a few years, the original motto was changed from "truth" to In Christi Gloriam (In Christ Be Glory) and later to Christo et Ecclesiae (For Christ and Church) because succeeding overseers of the college were continually concerned that Christ not be omitted from the instruction provided at the school".

Well flash forward to the 21st Century and we have the common acceptance that our 'law' can be disconnected from the truth.

I reject the notion that a person can't bring the Word of God with him wherever he goes (I'm not talking about the Bill Clinton Jumbo Sized version). A nation that disregards its foundation won't stand for long. Our forefathers understood that simple fact. Today's generation does not.

[Steve_Seattle]

"It is indeed institutionalized anit-bible nonsense."

It is no such thing; the law makes no specific reference to the Bible, but to any materials the jury introduces without approval of the court. And that generally means that the jury may only review evidence that has already been presented in court. If you want to base your decisions based on your understanding of Biblical justice, you can do that; but you cannot impose a sentence not allowed by our contemporary laws, and if you introduce evidence not presented in court, your verdict will be overturned.

[jude24]

This website is losing its collective mind.

Glad I'm not the only one seeing this.

[Modernman]

We need to rid ourselves of the judges and lawyers. A society does not need professional liars and the judges could be replaced by election like mayors and councilmen.

I propose we do the same thing for doctors and engineers. Who needs professional licensing of any sort? Let's allow high school drop-outs to be neurosurgeons. Great idea!

Rewrite the laws to make them understandable by laymen

If you can write a bankruptcy or securities law that can be understood by a layman and still work, I'll eat my hat.

The system of precedence and review of laws is out of date, and probably is anathema to a free society.

You don't like common law? Move to France.

[Steve_Seattle]

One of the problems with the O.J. jury was that they seemingly disregarded the preponderance of the evidence and ruled on the basis of their emotions, and that is precisely what you seem to be advocating.

[Modernman]

The very basis of western law is the Bible.

Not really. In Continental Europe, Roman Civil Law is the greatest source of law. The Anglo-American legal tradition traces its roots back to pagan Anglo-Saxon law.

[Sola Veritas]

"It's part of a judge's job to give jurors instructions prior to deliberation. This is to AVOID problems like this."

I know that, I just don't agree with the Colorado Supreme Court that a Bible should be excluded. Plus, I know it is really a waste of time for a judge to tell jurors on what basis they can come to a decision. It is a formalty they go through to avoid appeals. It is really naive to think people makes decisions solely upon what they have heard in court or what the trial judge instructs them.

In Oklahoma we don't get to pick our State Supreme Court justices, but we do get to vote on them every (6-8?) years as to whether they will be retained. The judges that ruled the Bible should not have been present should be singled out for non-retention by the Bible beliveing people in Colorado if they also have the ability to non-retain a judge.

[Steve_Seattle]

"It is really naive to think people makes decisions solely upon what they have heard in court or what the trial judge instructs them."

I don't think the law is naive; the law cannot prevent people from being people, but it can try to - as best as humanly possible - limit the evidence to what is presented in court.

[SedVictaCatoni]

A society does not need professional liars and the judges could be replaced by election like mayors and councilmen.

Judges are elected in many states.

Rewrite the laws to make them understandable by laymen, and get rid of law schools.

Most of "the laws" consist of the body of experience and tradition which exists in a community, as represented through past decisions of judges (in some cases, stretching back hundreds of years). If you leave a banana peel on your front doorstep and somebody trips and sues you, they don't sue you under the Banana Peel Law which exists in a book somewhere - they sue you under the tradition in your state that people shouldn't leave things lying around where they know others can trip over them. This is called the "common law" - the body of tradition. Laws which the legislature has ever actually passed are called "statutes". Most law (more or less) is common law, because the legislature would have its hands full trying to pass "The People Should Look Where They Are Going Act", the "Banana Peels Are Bright Yellow And People Should Be Expected To Notice Them Act", etc. This is why you can't simply "rewrite" the laws - most of it wasn't deliberately "written" to begin with, and in any case there's simply too much.

The system of precedence and review of laws is out of date, and probably is anathema to a free society.

The point of precedent is that a judge, when trying to figure out what the traditional rule is, obviously first tries to find out what everybody before him did. If it's flat-out never come up before, or if times have changed so much that the old rule would lead to a crazy result, he takes a stab at making a new one based on the closest available cases. If the legislature doesn't like the result, they can pass a statute - basically overwriting the tradition - and giving a hard-and-fast rule for future judges to apply.

[sinkspur]

The judges that ruled the Bible should not have been present should be singled out for non-retention by the Bible beliveing people in Colorado if they also have the ability to non-retain a judge.

Why? The judges who replace them will also prevent the Bible from being brought into a jury room.

Your belligerence on this proves that you have no business ever serving on a jury, since you simply won't follow simple directions.

[SalukiLawyer]

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

Well put.

I think I could have predicted and written all the responses on this thread, and in some cases maybe even proper attribution, just on the basis of the headline.

More and more, I just end up shaking my head after a visit to FreeRepublic. It used to be fun, when Clinton was in office, and you had to look for a Michael Rivero thread for wackiness. Now I sometimes think FR has gone the way of the rest of the country and everyone just gets more polarized, less able to give thoughtful consideration to once-shared values. Instead of persons, we view each other as targets in some sort of verbal video arcade shooter.