[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.

[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.

[Modernman]

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.

Enough with the persecution complex. The rules don't exclude the Bible. They exclude all outside evidence.