For that matter, people around here were incensed by the idea that the U. S. Supreme Court was considering the opinions of foreign law. Why shouldn't we be outraged that a jury constituted under our laws is consulting a foreign text in its deliberations?
"the judge's instructions"
Says it all.
What's the difference between bringing written quotations from the Bible into the deliberations and quoting the same text from memory?
How does bringing one's mind fit into all this?
Might this explain why lawyers seem to go to great lengths to choose the mindless to serve on juries?
I say this only partly in jest. I would neither bring a bible to a jury room nor quote any part of it from memory.
My mind would inhibit me in that regard.
You can't bring in a Bible, a law textbook, Time magazine - nothing. This ruling has nothing to do with anti-Bible or anti-Christian sentiment. The jurors who did this were idiots.
The outcome might have been different if they had simply shared religious beliefs or even quoted the Bible. After all, lawyers are allowed to serve on juries, despite their knowledge of the law independent of the judge's instructions.
But they did independent outside research, which jurors are explicitly told not to do. They brought outside materials into deliberations. They argued the case and/or the law, which is not their job.
I guess jurors don't have 1st Amendment rights now?
Newspapers have a 1st amendment right to exist, and to publish more or less what they want. I have a right to read them. As a juror, I am not allowed to read accounts of my case until after I have rendered judgment.
Soldiers are not allowed to say anything they like to superiors. Diplomats are not allowed to say anything they want to representatives of foreign countries. Officials of any government agency are allowed to say what they want to anyone at any time, but not if they want to keep their jobs.
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. If you do not accept that, if you intend to ignore the facts and the instruction and rule based on the Bible, be honest about it. You can be stricken from the jury and go back to your life.
You have the right to hold any belief imaginable, be it Christianity or Santaria or UFOs or Scientology. That is your right -- until and unless it conflicts with your duty. It does not make you a criminal. Just, at worst, an unfit juror. I don't remember anyone being criminally sanctioned for that without obvious and glaring misconduct, like taking bribes. But just know that the harder you bend the rules, the harder they'll snap back when it's discovered.
maybe the jurors were idiots, but was their action so despicable, so subversive that an important judgment had to be overturned?....no, I don't think so......
If a juror is well enough versed in the Bible to paraphrase it from memory, should that be permitted?
Should a juror be prevented from studying the Bible during the course of a trial?
Jurors are most certainly not supposed to rely solely on the testimony and the judge's instructions. They are also supposed to rely on their own sensibilities and moral values.
You fail to see the folly in your statement, don't you?
"I see that someone on this thread understands the law. Jurors are prohibited from bringing ANY outside materials into their deliberations; they are supposed to rely solely on the testimony they have heard and on the judge's instructions. You can't bring in a Bible, a law textbook, Time magazine - nothing. This ruling has nothing to do with anti-Bible or anti-Christian sentiment. The jurors who did this were idiots."
I'm glad a few people get this. You don't want juries considering anything other than testimony and exhibits that have been entered into the case. I don't want jurors reading "an eye for an eye" or "blessed are the merciful" when trying to make a factual determination.
Moreover, prosecutors and defense attorneys fight tooth and nail over jury instructions. You don't want some mutant who was too stupid to get out of jury duty to second guess jury instructions by debating the finer points of theology or anything else wholly irrelevant to following the damn instructions.
If you guys want to blame someone, blame the moron jurors who apparently didn't learn to follow instructions back in kindergarten.
(from another thread on this)
it still begs the question, is this reason enough to comute the sentence?
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.