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.
Funny I didn't see that part of the article where it said a Bible was brought into the jury room.
I wouldn't be a bit surprized if the jurors were sequestered in motel rooms with Gideon Bibles in the night stands. Nothing to do but read the Bible, and maybe discussed it at breakfast.
Now that's real dangerous to the criminal justice system.
They'll be wantin' to ban those Gideon Bibles next thing you know.
"Your belligerence on this proves that you have no business ever serving on a jury, since you simply won't follow simple directions."
I served on juries in the past and I was passive in the deliberations. I observed how other people came to conclusions, and it wasn't based on what the judge said. That isn't reality. However, I don't ever get seated on a jury anymore, because I tell the judge and trial attorneys up front that I am a licensed private investigator. Neither side want someone that can think independently.
I don't mean to appear "belligerent" per se. I just think the Supreme Court of Colorado made a stupid decision. I don't the Bible or discussions of it should be excluded from juries because it is folly. It may not be on lips, but it will be on minds. Also, I still maintain it is institutionalized anti-Bible bias.
I would like to know if a judge would have tossed out a case over this back in the 19th Century?