Posted on 10/03/2005 12:47:56 PM PDT by nypokerface
How stupid.
How stupid.
------
It is BEYOND STUPID. It represents the kind of insanity that takes place in court rooms today.
Why would someone need to consult the Bible on an issue as oft quoted as the justification for the Death Penalty. In any case bringing materials into the Jury Room other then court transcripts is forbidden entirely so its not surprising there was a mistrial called for.
I'll bet a quote from the devil would have fried they guy. I am never surprised but the "stuck on stupid" courts.
Oh those wacky Christians... I guess they didn't read Jesus' new and improved version:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matt. 5:38-29)
Didn't the RAT Earle use the bible also to indict Delay or something like that?? I know I read it somewhere! Can anyone here find the thread or link to the article...just curious that's all!!
1. So basically they are saying that jurors no longer have freedom of religion.
2. Is Roberts active yet? This is two unfortunate choices for early decisions by the new Robert's court if he is active.
Such as the fact that he was guilty of heinous crime....
--- The Colorado Supreme Court agreed. "We can no longer say that Harlan's death sentence was not influenced by passion, prejudice or some other arbitrary factor," it ruled. ---
Kidnap, Rape, Murder... ya, the Bible being introduced into the jury deliberations was the REAL crime.
Was Roberts in on this????????????????????????????
Perhaps context. Also, sometimes people like to look up John 3:16 even though they know it's there too.
maybe pingout tomorrow...
use of the Bible would influence a typical juror to vote for the death penalty.
As if the whole jury process isn't about influencing jurors. Sheesh.
I guess this means we should get rid of prisons, huh?
Bad start.
A juror is not allowed to bring anything into the jury room to show other jurors - not a newspaper, not a law textbook, not a Bible, not a copy of Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel, not anything. Jurors are supposed to decide solely based on the evidence presented and the law which they have been asked to apply.
Although the example which the Supreme Court refused to review looks extreme, the principle is universal.
"Was Roberts in on this????????????????????????????"
He's on the job, isn't he?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.