Posted on 05/24/2003 1:46:57 PM PDT by Con X-Poser
LAW OF THE LAND
Judge kills death sentence because jurors read Bible
Several consulted scriptural references while deciding fate of rapist-murderer
--------------------------------
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Although Robert Harlan was convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering a 25-year-old woman and shooting another woman passer-by who tried to help, leaving her paralyzed, a Colorado judge yesterday overturned his death sentence because some jurors had read the Bible during their deliberations.
Harlan was convicted in 1995 for murdering waitress Rhonda Maloney, who was driving home from work when Harlan forced her car off the road, according to a Reuters report. During the crime, he also shot Jaquie Creazzo, a "good Samaritan" who tried to help Maloney. Creazzo was paralyzed by the gunshot.
Ironically, said the report, Adams County District Judge John J. Vigil admitted Harlan's crimes ''were among the most grievous, heinous and reprehensible'' he had ever seen, writing in his ruling: "If any case merits the death penalty, there cannot be serious debate about this case being that case."
Nevertheless, wrote the judge, the death penalty "must be imposed in a constitutional manner."
He blamed court officials for failing to sequester the jury adequately – that is, to keep Bibles out of their hands.
Noting that ''the jury supervision performed in this case was extremely negligent and appallingly lax,'' Vigil stated in his ruling that ''jury resort to biblical code has no place in a constitutional death penalty proceeding.'' As of today, Vigil has not set a date for Harlan's re-sentencing.
Although jury members, who were sequestered in a hotel during the period of their deliberations, were not exposed to newspapers and other media coverage, court officials didn't remove the Bibles from jurors' rooms.
Virgil wrote in his ruling that jurors read Bibles and had notes with scriptural references on punishment in the deliberation room with them before reaching the death-sentence verdict, according to an Associated Press report.
Steve Bernard, Adams County assistant district attorney for the case, said ''We respectively disagree and will appeal,'' according to Reuters, adding it was unclear whether or not a Bible was actually brought into the jury room.
During last month's five-day hearing, attorneys for the convicted murderer argued that some of the jurors had read Bible verses during their deliberations. Two Old Testament verses from Leviticus were particularly problematic, claimed the defense. One read, ''fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him.'' The other, ''whoever kills an animal shall restore it, but whoever kills a man shall be put to death.''
Kathleen Lord, attorney for Harlan, argued that jurors referring to religious works while deliberating was improper because they are not part of Colorado law, according to the AP report.
On the other hand, prosecutors – arguing that reading the Bible couldn't have influenced the jury's verdict anyway – claimed the judge's order to sequester the jury meant preventing jurors from reading newspapers and watching TV news reports. But it did not, they said, mean jurors should somehow be prohibited from referring to their own personal moral standards – including the Holy Bible – while deliberating and reaching their verdict.
Public concensus is hardly absolute, homosexuality and abortion used to be considered immoral and wrong by society, but not anymore. We're seeing pedophilia being pushed as legitimate right before our eyes, with politicians like Hillary Clinton supporting "child rights", lower consent ages, and perverted groups like NAMBLA (North American MAN-BOY Love Ass'n) gaining voice in society.
Who's to say that rape won't someday be considered simply another "alternative lifestyle" and to inhibit a rapist would be to violate his civil rights to practice his "sexual preference"? We'd be castigated as rapephobes and charged with a "hate crime".
From the juror's perpective, why should they have to forfeit their 1st Amendment religious liberty and freedom of speech simply because they are servig on a jury? If the Bible is where they determined that murder and rape were wrong, why can they not refer to it?
So9
Will naming new judges cause Bush to stop supporting banning semi-auto guns?
President Bush will never have the opportunity to sign an extention of the ban on semi automatic guns. The longer we go after the expiration of the ban, the harder it will be to reimpose. The DemocRATS are finally realizing that their positions on gun control helped cause their party to lose several states including Al Gore's home state of Tennessee in 2000. I doubt the next Republican presidential nominee will bring up the issue at all. The more desperate DemocRATS get for power, the more likely they are to jettison the issue. By the 2004 elections, DemocRATS will have been out of power for ten years in Congress. Their prospects look even worse over the next eight years till the next redistricting.
Will naming new judges cause Bush to stop outspending Clinton?
Have you ever read the Constitution? Judges don't have lots of authority over the budget. One very big reason for increases in spending was that the Republicans lost control of the Senate in 2001 after having 50-50 split for five months. I think a more solid republican majority especially in the Senate will help to control spending.
Will naming new judges cause Bush to stop supporting the sodomites?
What would you want him to do with them? Put them in front of a firing squad and execute them? They exist, so what? I haven't seen President Bush support gay marriage or other hot button gay issues.
Will naming new judges cause Bush to do something about abortion?
What do you want him to do? Sign an executive order like Clinton? I would like to see a future Supreme Court overturn the decision. But even if it did overturn that decision, all that would happen is that the states would be allowed to make their own decisions on the issue. Somehow I don't get the impression that you are opposed to judicial activism, just judicial activism that is opposed to your ideology. You seem to want the US Supreme Court to impose a ban on abortion not just a repeal of Row vs Wade.
I do not know what Constitution he is reading, but in mine it nowhere says 'freedom from religion'.
He blamed court officials for failing to sequester the jury adequately – that is, to keep Bibles out of their hands.
Yup, now Bibles are prohibited reading matter. Pretty soon the atheists will disqualify anyone who attends church or proclaims himself to be a Christian (Muslims will be allowed though since they adhere to a barbaric faith in which murder of opponents is no big deal).
The hell it doesn't.
Listen hotshot.. That's why we HAVE a jury to begin with.
It's because the common man can be trusted far and away more than our pious judges, prosecutors and defence attorney's.
It's because the common man can be trusted far and away more than our pious judges, prosecutors and defence attorney's.
Yup, but the judges keep trying to tell the juries how to decide and when they don't do what they like this corrupt atheist tries to overturn their verdict. If we wanted kangaroo courts we would not be bothering with juries.
Exactly, we would just do away with them entirely if that were the case.
But, no. A jury of one's peers is an integral part of justice.
It's not: "A Jury of the peers, all secular and without access to any religious text"
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.