Supreme Court Won't Disturb Death Sentence In Case Of Jurors Who Consulted Bible

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned away a challenge from a death row inmate in Texas who claimed his constitutional rights were violated by jurors who consulted a Bible during deliberations.

Jurors reviewed a biblical passage relating that a murderer who used an iron object to kill "shall surely be put to death." They were deciding whether to impose a death sentence on Khristian Oliver for fatally shooting and bludgeoning his victim with the barrel of a gun.

The court previously has said that jurors should base their verdicts only on evidence presented in the courtroom.

Read more: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-scotus-execution-bible,0,3638245.story

[Renew Deal]

1. Is there a difference between verdict and sentencing in the eyes of the court?

Or is sentencing considered part of the verdict? This is really a question for the lawyers on DU.

I know that part of being a juror is bringing your personal experience, values, etc. But it does seem innappropriate to allow the consultation of a bible (or any other outside materials). Also, what does the law say in this matter? I imagine it says the the death penalty "may" be imposed instead of "shall" be imposed.

[MindPilot]

10. Different states, different process and I'm not a lawyer.

Here's what I think I know:

The jury decides the guilt or innocence of the accused, but the final decision of the sentence rests with the judge. The juries can recommend a DP in cases where it is applicable, and I think the judge will generally go along.

Jurors are explicitly instructed to not seek any information or do any research related to the case from any source outside of the evidence and testimony they hear in the court room. I fail to see how a bible is excluded from that.

[louis-t]

14. As far as I know, the judge can throw out a conviction

but cannot convict if the jury doesn't.

[Rage for Order]

22. The thing being...

Would it be different if the jurors had not actually looked at the bible, but instead one of the jurors said "Chapter 2 Verse 12 of Book X in the bible says this"? Jurors are going to use their life experiences to determine a fitting punishment for the crime, and some jurors are going to have religion as part of their life experience. If it was the guilt or innocence phase of deliberations I'd say throw out the verdict. What if the jurors had used a verse along the lines of "turn the other cheek", "be forgiving", or "judge not lest ye be judged" as justification for not handing down the death sentence? Would anyone's perspective change?

I'm not sure where I come down on this one. It's almost a coin flip in my mind as to whether this is appropriate or ridiculous.

[24601]

28. Probably why a bible shouldn't be consulted. If they had

consulted a Koran, could the guys family get him spared with a payment to the victim's family? Faith is fine for our personal values, but not our public duties.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Makes one wonder how many of the jurors had a ham sandwich, cheeseburger, or poly/cotton underwear

[BlueJazz]

15. Good Point

[XemaSab]

18. Makes one wonder how many of the jurors were menstruating or had a rash

:eyes:

[laconicsax]

19. Makes one wonder how many had performed their daily animal sacrifice.

[cosmicone]

3. Do they really need a bible to put someone to death in Texas?

I thought sneezing without covering the mouth was plenty reason for a death sentence in Texas!

[defendandprotect]

4. Who ever said religion is good for mental health? Or law?

[Gator_Matt]

5. When you're guilty of murder, this seems like splitting hairs

If you don't want to face the death penalty, don't shoot and bludgeon someone. Doesn't sound as though there is any indication of the man's innocence in this horrific crime. To play devil's advocate, wouldn't you have to fill your jury pool with atheists (like myself) in order to avoid the influence of religion? Even then, odds are decent that the death penalty would still be imposed.

[MindPilot]

12. The difference between life and death is not exactly splitting hairs

The accused's guilt or innocence is not the issue. This is about whether or not procedural rules were applied properly and did the man in fact get a fair trial. If they were not, then he did not.

It's also necessary to ask if jurors can--even when explicitly prohibited from do any investigation or research about the case--still consult a holy text for legal advise.

And welcome to DU!!!

[NutmegYankee]

20. The death penalty does have some "moral leeway" in it.

There are a lot of non-legal aspects that are considered when juries decide for or against the death penalty. They look at whether the convicted was remorseful, the nature of the crime (how gruesome), motive, etc. It isn't a black or white decision.

[Zhade]

27. It's about upholding civil rights, not this man's guilt or innocence.

NT!

[geomon666]

6. Can I kill someone with a wooden stake and get away with it? n/t

[jb5150]

7. Isn't a gun "steel"?

Is that a loophole?

[cagesoulman]

17. And if I throw a bottle of One a Day plus Iron, obstruct a driver's vision, and the driver crashes

and dies, I get death?

[NutmegYankee]

21. steel is just iron mixed with 1-3% carbon.

I'd say it's iron, since even the purest iron back in ancient times had some carbon mixed in it.

[Snotcicles]

8. Sounds like hand washing. nt

[MindPilot]

9. So the bible is OK? A law book would get the case tossed in a heartbeat

If it came to light that a juror had gone to the law library to do their own research on a case, the outcome would be very predicable...mistrial.

Just another example of the double standard that comes into play when religion is involved.

[glinda]

11. Does this decision set precedent in Court now that the Bible can be used to make such decisions?

[elleng]

13. We've got to watch the facts,

even if the sun sentinel didn't.

Jurors were deciding whether to impose death sentence. this is NOT a verdict of guilty or not guilty. I see no conflict with the fact that jurors should base their VERDICTS only on evidence presented in the courtroom.

Each state deals with verdict and sentencing matters differently.

AND:

Amendment I to U.S. Constitution:

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

We have to think about, and courts have LONG thought about, the different clauses here, the 'establishment' clause, and the 'free exercise' clause. SO, y'all decide whether what they did was OK.

[SkyDaddy7]

16. I guess America is becoming a Theocracy?

I am not defending what this guy did but there is no excuse for a Bronze Age handbook being in a court room much less being used by jurors to make a decision on death? So, I guess it is ok to kill gay people and children who curse their parents?

This simply absurd!

Again, where are the so-called "Moderate Christians"?

[MrBig]

23. Actually...this can't surprise anyone

There have been cases where members of the jury have been shown to have been high and sold cocaine during the trial and still the verdict stuck.

Once a jury gives a verdict, not even Jesus himself could get a Court to overturn it on the basis of an incompetent jury.

[DatManFromNawlins]

24. So the verdict was passed...

... and the jurors, who were sure of his guilt, decided to consult a Bible to back up their justification that the man should be put to death.

I feel that the death penalty is wrong, however, given that they had to make this decision on their own, if their conscience compelled them to put this man to death and they reviewed the Bible for a second opinion on the matter, then I see no problem with using it to help them decide between their options.

And further complaints about the Levitical nature of old testament Jewish law really don't apply. We already have laws in this country. This wasn't about the law or the facts of the case. This was about choosing a punishment given the narrow scope they had to deal with once they had come down with a guilty verdict.

Had they declared him guilty because upon anecdotal information in the case compelled them to decide he should be locked away, like if they were all crazy fundies who found the dude was gay and thought he deserved punishment for it, THEN the defense would have a case against them using a Bible. But only then.

And I say this as someone who found religion to be a cornerstone of destructive influences in my life and subsequently discarded it as folklore.

[Zhade]

25. How the FUCK is this not illegal?

NT!

[and-justice-for-all]

26. I would toss the verdict and start the case over...nt