"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.
That is simply incorrect. Juries are supposed to look at the facts and instructions in light of their own experience and moral framework. That is why you have juries in the first place. If juries are to be limited to looking at facts in a vacuum, they serve no purpose. There is no requirment that they do so.
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.
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.