Church & State separate ? Not in Colorado

[Isaac]

Death Penalty Tossed Over Bible Verses
Mon Mar 28, 6:08 PM ET Top Stories - AP


DENVER - The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the death penalty in a rape-and-murder case because jurors had studied Bible verses such as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" during deliberations.

On a 3-2 vote, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison without parole for kidnapping 25-year-old cocktail waitress Rhonda Maloney in 1994 and raping her at gunpoint for two hours.

The jurors in Harlan's 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed doors.

The Supreme Court said that "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages to vote for the death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence."

Assistant District Attorney Michael Goodbee said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling and could ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider or could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court last month, defense attorney Kathleen Lord said the jurors had gone outside the law. "They went to the Bible to find out God's position on capital punishment," she said.

Prosecutors had argued that jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.

I'm glad that he's not dying but something troubles me about this.

[scaeagles]

I'm not sure why this bothers you - a judge threw out the death penalty because religion was used in determining his fate. I would think you would applaud that.

I, however, am disturbed by it. I could be wrong, but I don't think it is within the purview of a judge to look at the reason (or one of the reasons) that a jury came to their verdict. What he has done is put himself in the deliberation room at that point, and i think that is wrong. That is not his job.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I could be wrong, but I don't think it is within the purview of a judge to look at the reason (or one of the reasons) that a jury came to their verdict. What he has done is put himself in the deliberation room at that point, and i think that is wrong. That is not his job.

I agree that the Supreme Court made the right decision in this case. All jurors are basically instructed that the only thing that should come into play in the decision-making process is the letter of the law. Not emotion, not religion, not a Ouji board. They are to simply look at the facts of the case and look at what the law says and make the decisions based solely on that information. Their job is not to look to the bible to aid in their decision. If that is what they did, there really is no choice but to step in. They aren't doing their job correctly. Besides, this wasn't done by the trial judge and he didn't put himself in the deliberation room. It went to the Supreme Court where a 3 judge panel independently made the decision.

[scaeagles]

I agree, MBC, when it comes to guilt or innocense. However, giving the death penalty is a matter of opinion, is it not? Whether this defendant deserves the "ultimate" penalty? There have been juries in the past where one person says that they have personal beliefs that forbid them from ever giving the death penalty. Should any juror with strong personal convictions be eliminated from the jury pool?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Sorry scaeagles, you are too quick for me. I edited my original comments. :) I don't know if that changes your response or not.

I think there is a difference between someone having personal convictions, or bringing a book in to influence others. The book isn't allowed to be a part of the process.

[€uroMeinke]

Should any juror with strong personal convictions be eliminated from the jury pool?

I think this happens all the time. I know I've been "thanked and excused" on cases where I stated I didn't support the death penalty.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Good point, €uroMeinke.

[scaeagles]

I think this happens all the time. I know I've been "thanked and excused" on cases where I stated I didn't support the death penalty.

Ah, but that is before any part of the trial starts. Once you're in, you're in, and I would suggest that not doing everything possible to sway other jurors to your point of view completely does harm to the system overall. Are not the jurors supposed to deliberate? If it were quoted would that make a difference? So the opinions of these people do not matter because they had to refer to a document instead of knowing various Biblical quotes.

[Morrigoon]

Seems to me that you're bringing in jurors to use their judgement. Included in their judgement process are all their modes of thinking, all the influences in their lives up to that point, INCLUDING their religion. Now a judge is telling them that they're wrong based on their religion.

IMHO, Atheism is becoming dogmatic in and of itself, as its own "religion". And the government is starting to endorse it to the exclusion of others.

[scaeagles]

Sorry scaeagles, you are too quick for me.

That's what you said when I earned my toaster. ;)

[mousepod]

I'm not sure it's that big of a deal, Scaeagles. When I've served on juries, the Judge has read us instructions that go on forever and ever about what we can and can not consider during deliberation. Basically, it comes down to this: you're not supposed use information other than the law and the facts as they are presented in the court. If it comes out that outside information was brought into play, the judge can throw out the verdict. I'm sure that people bring their personal opinions into the jury room every day, and I'm also sure that this is understood by the attorneys when selecting the jury. I'll bet that this case has more to do with the fact that jurors looked up "the law" (biblical law, but law nonetheless) on their own. You're not even allowed to look up US law on your own.

Perhaps someone with some more legal background could chime in on this one.

[scaeagles]

I'm not sure it's that big of a deal, Scaeagles.

I tend to agree. I guess I was just confused when zapppop was concerned about it when I thought the ruling would be something he would be supportive of.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Of course a person can rely on their own religious beliefs to make a decission, especially in the penalty phase. There is no way to stop that, nor should there be. However, the issue is they brought in outside source material. That's not allowed.

[scaeagles]

Of course a person can rely on their own religious beliefs to make a decission, especially in the penalty phase. There is no way to stop that, nor should there be. However, the issue is they brought in outside source material. That's not allowed.

It doesn't appear, though, that that was the issue - from the OP quoted article:

"The Supreme Court said that "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages to vote for the death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence." "

They did not say that (and it could be that it just was not in the article). They said that these "authoritative passages" could have been an undo influence on at least one juror. Would it not still have the same influence if the verses were quoted? If the jurors had taken the time to memorize them and quote them?

I am concerned that those with a religious point of view are being told that their religious point of view makes all of their opinions invalid. From the quote in the article, I would suggest that is what is being said.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The jurors in Harlan's 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed doors.
I don't think this would have been an issue if they hadn't brought them in with them.

[scaeagles]

Well, you could be right, GD, but if those passages are "authoritative" when being read, I would suppose that they are just as "authoritative" when being quoted.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well, perhaps. But, honestly, I still think it's the right decission. The decission should be based on our laws, not bibilical law.

[€uroMeinke]

IMHO, Atheism is becoming dogmatic in and of itself, as its own "religion". And the government is starting to endorse it to the exclusion of others.

If only...:rolleyes:

[€uroMeinke]

IMHO, Atheism is becoming dogmatic in and of itself, as its own "religion". And the government is starting to endorse it to the exclusion of others.

If only...:rolleyes:

[Motorboat Cruiser]

IMHO, Atheism is becoming dogmatic in and of itself, as its own "religion". And the government is starting to endorse it to the exclusion of others.

Would that be the same government that is pushing for faith-based initiatives, only allowing abstinence-only education, limiting stem-cell research, and appointing an attorney general that wouldn't so much as dance because of his religious beliefs?

Interesting take on things. :)

[scaeagles]

An interesting tidbit I got in a political emailing that I receive daily -

" In Colorado, jurors in death penalty cases are specifically
told to make a moral judgment, but, the majority on the Colorado Supreme
Court said the Bible was an improper outside influence and an "extraneous
text." The Bible is extraneous to making a moral judgment?

In contrast, the two dissenting judges said the majority was confusing the
Bible with outside influences, such as newspaper articles and television
programs, which are normally to be avoided when a jury deliberates.
Rather, they wrote, "The biblical passages the jurors discussed constituted
either a part of the jurors' moral and religious precepts or their general
knowledge, and thus were relevant to their court sanctioned moral
assessment." "

If the instructions when assessing the death penalty say jurors are to make a "moral judgement" (which I've been unable to confirm, but trust the source of my emailing), then referencing a religious text should not be out of bounds.

[Prudence]

The majority in this decision was likely trying to make the point, as GD mentioned already, that the difference is bringing in the written word, not just a recitation of previously learned verses. Conversely, the dissent is saying that it's just the written word of what they already believe, so what's the big deal. It's a tough call. I'd probably side with the majority, though, and draw a bright line prohibiting consulting any outside materials.

Note that does not prohibit one from drawing on one's own memory and experiences, including memory of bible verses, church teachings, gossip from last week's coven meeting, etc... But as a culture the written word is still seems more powerful to some, and there's a difference between saying that verse such and such says this and having the actual document on hand.

As my dad would say, subtle but significant.