Court rules juries can't discuss the Bible when discussing punishment..

[SirFozzie]

I know I'm usually on the other side of issues involving the Church and the Bible, but this is ridiculous. I swear, they don't want jurors.. they want computers..

Death sentence by jury that discussed Bible thrown out

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 Posted: 8:24 AM EST (1324 GMT)

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Ruling that juries cannot turn to the Bible for advice during deliberations, a divided Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death penalty for a convicted murderer because jurors discussed Bible verses.

In a 3-2 vote on Monday, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life without parole for kidnapping Rhonda Maloney and raping her at gunpoint for two hours before fatally shooting her.

Authorities said Maloney, a 25-year-old cocktail waitress, was on her way home from work at a casino. Harlan later admitted killing her, but said he was addled by cocaine, alcohol and rage.

Harlan was sentenced to death in 1995, but defense lawyers learned that five jurors had looked up such Bible verses as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," copied them and discussed them while deliberating behind closed doors.

Defense attorney Kathleen Lord, arguing before the state Supreme Court last month, 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 countered, saying jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.

Monday's ruling said the Bible and other religious writings are considered "codes of law by many" in Colorado. But noting that it takes a unanimous jury to impose a death sentence here, the court said "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages ... when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence."

In their dissent, Justices Nancy Rice and Rebecca Love Kourlis said the evidence did not show biblical passages influenced jurors. "It is important to note that the concept of extraneous information does not include the general knowledge a juror brings to court," Rice wrote.

Gov. Bill Owens said Monday's ruling was "demeaning to people of faith and prevents justice from being served."

Prosecutors were reviewing the decision and could ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider or could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jay Horowitz, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former University of Denver law professor, said the law bars jurors from considering evidence not presented at trial.

But he noted it was unreasonable to expect them to set aside moral standards when they step into a jury room, though there must be limits. "In fact, people do bring their background and thoughts and impressions, and you can't separate from that, and shouldn't try to," he said.

The conservative Christian group, Focus on the Family, had sharp criticism for the court.

"Today's ruling further confirms that the judicial branch of our government is nearly bereft of any moral foundation," said Tom Minnery, the group's vice president for government and public policy.

[Peregrine]

Yeah I saw this too, couldn't believe it. It's absolutely nutso.

[Blackadar]

Interesting...I think there may be more to this than reported. I'd like to know the specifics of the conversation and how the Bible was used in deliberations.

[SirFozzie]

I think what the defense (successfully) argued is that when it comes to punishment, you have to use the guidelines as specified by the law, and fit the crime to the law's scale. By going to something outside the law (the Bible, see the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" line..) the defense arged that they went outside the guidelines and that the punishment should be set aside.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I think what the defense (successfully) argued is that when it comes to punishment, you have to use the guidelines as specified by the law, and fit the crime to the law's scale. By going to something outside the law (the Bible, see the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" line..) the defense arged that they went outside the guidelines and that the punishment should be set aside.

Sounds like a good argument. And I would agree with it 100%.

[Peregrine]

From the big article in the NYT today about this, they mentioned that the defense even brought up the Bible in their closing statements, asking jurors to find mercy "as God ultimately took mercy on Abraham." No way they should be able to use the Bible on one hand and then exclude the jurors from using it too.

NYT link (registration required, blah blah)

http://tinyurl.com/5c45t

[SirFozzie]

I would agree.. except there's no evidence that it influenced jurors...

What it could have been was natural human instinct NOT to take life from anyone and looking to the bible for moral guidance/reassurance

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

From the big article in the NYT today about this, they mentioned that the defense even brought up the Bible in their closing statements, asking jurors to find mercy "as God ultimately took mercy on Abraham." No way they should be able to use the Bible on one hand and then exclude the jurors from using it too.

NYT link (registration required, blah blah)

http://tinyurl.com/5c45t

I also agree with this. A lawyer should not play to religion on the one hand and then fight it in the deliberation room. BOTH should not be done.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Sounds like a good argument. And I would agree with it 100%.

me too...church and state has to be kept out of it...what if one of the jurors on a trial, was a extreme muslim, who believed that the sentencing for theft should be the chopping off of the hands, or a stoning to death, or a gang rape, etc. Thats what exists throughout the world when you base punsihment on religious doctrine and it should not be a part of the guidelines here in our free country.

[albionmoonlight]

Caveat: I have not read the case, so nothing that I say means anything or is at all informed.

Generally, I am a fan of allowing jurors to bring whatever experiences they have into the room with them. That's why we have jurors and not professional fact finders.

Death, however, is different. You may agree or not, but take SirFozzie's point and multiply it by 100 for a death sentence. An eye for an eye is not the law. If a jury sentenced a black man to death based on neo-nazi literature that said that all blacks needed to die, would that be ok? You can make an argument that it should be, but that is simply not the law. Neither is an eye for an eye. You can only sentence someone to death if you find that they meet certain specific conditions.

I find it hard to make a rational argument that would allow a jury to sentence to death based on an eye-for-an-eye, but not allow a jury to sentence to death based on "all jews need to be exterminated from the earth." You either let jurors do whatever their personal beliefs tell them to do, or you require them to apply the law of the land. Like I said above, either is a defensible position, but realize what you are opening the door to once you decide that jurors need not be bound by the law.

And, on a personal note, I find an irony here. If these people had kept reading the Bible, they would have found that this Jesus guy shows up near the end and invalidates a lot of the earlier chapters. Kind of a twist ending and all that.

[Blackadar]

As I said, I'd have to hear more about the circumstances.

If a couple people looked in the bible for guidance, that's fine by me. That's their moral values system - and if they wanted to reference their value system, that's ok. But if that's ALL they considered, then there is a problem.

But if 4-5 jurors were Bible Thumping in the deliberations, talking about "God's will", reading scripture and using that source to justify their positions (and possibly browbeat others into submission), then it's clearly a problem.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by article

Jay Horowitz, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former University of Denver law professor, said the law bars jurors from considering evidence not presented at trial.

Strikes me that this principle is pretty important here.

If someone on the jury says that they believe a certain sentence is merited, in part because of her religious teachings, I don't see how that can be a problem.

But if the jury requests an outside text of any sort, looks up passages that are nominally relevant to the case at hand, and introduces those elements to the jury as part of its deliberations -- it seems to me that this is going outside the established rules of evidence. (It's not entirely clear to me what happened here, I confess)


I also think that the standard of "whether things influenced the jury" is too nebulous to use as the meaningful dividing line. If the jury members went out of their way to get this information, write it down, bring it into the deliberations, and include it in the jury discussions -- it seems to me that the case is made that it had some influence on the jury's reasoning.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I for one am glad we don't live under Sharia law in the United States, and that our courts take that fact seriously.

[Fritz]

I think the guidelines provide a framework for what is acceptable and allowable. As long as a sentence falls within the acceptable/allowable realm, I don't think it matters what the jury talks about.

A just can not ask for a theif's hands to be removed, because we don't do that.

But if either a life or execution is an acceptable, and the just returns one of those, however they got there is fine by me.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Strikes me that this principle is pretty important here.

If someone on the jury says that they believe a certain sentence is merited, in part because of her religious teachings, I don't see how that can be a problem.

But if the jury requests an outside text of any sort, looks up passages that are nominally relevant to the case at hand, and introduces those elements to the jury as part of its deliberations -- it seems to me that this is going outside the established rules of evidence. (It's not entirely clear to me what happened here, I confess)
.

I believe the latter part is what is being questioned- looking to the bible for evidence of what to do is considered a violation of not looking for evidence outside the court. If there's a lawyer here who has a better understanding of the principle at hand - I imagine they could explain it better.

[larrymcg421]

I don't have a problem with this. They haven't overturned the conviction, just the sentence. If we are gonna have the death penalty, then I believe the strictest scrutiny must be applied in cases where that sentence is used. A jury circling passages in the bible, specifically ones regarding punishment for crimes, does not meet that standard for me. I'd say the same if they referred to passages in any other religious text.

[judicial clerk]

I think QS has got it about right. A juror cannot bring a text not admitted into evidence into the jury room unless the judge allows it. A jury could not bring a bible or a dictionary or a statutory code book into the jury room.

A juror can and should be influenced in their decision making by their own experiences including their experience as a christian. They can then attempt to influence the other jurors. it is just part of the discussion and negotiation that goes on in the jury room.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Fritz

I think the guidelines provide a framework for what is acceptable and allowable. As long as a sentence falls within the acceptable/allowable realm, I don't think it matters what the jury talks about.

A just can not ask for a theif's hands to be removed, because we don't do that.

But if either a life or execution is an acceptable, and the just returns one of those, however they got there is fine by me.

What he said.

I would expect a religious discrimination suit on this...

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

What he said.

I would expect a religious discrimination suit on this...

Your Honor, if this man is not executed according to our decision, then our Christian faith is being discriminated against!

[Wolfpack]

Another point of argument is what if the jurors didn't need the physical Bible? I'm sure people have sat on juries in the South who can quote just about any passage you can think of from the Bible. Do you think they sat on that information during deliberations?

[larrymcg421]

How would this be religious discrimination? I could see if the ruling allowed a religious text of another faith but not the bible, but as long as all religious texts are disallowed then I don't see the discrimination.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

What he said.

I would expect a religious discrimination suit on this...

Really ? Would you like me to convict someone on the basis of Shar'ia law ?

[Franklinnoble]

It's like Fritz said... the jury was given the option to prescribe the death sentence under the law. How they get there is irrellevant.

I have no idea what the hell Shar'ia law is... but if it's the moral basis for a jury to decide that a rapist/murderer should indeed receive the death penalty, I have no problem with it.

[SirFozzie]

It's Islamic Law Franklin.. the one that says that if a man is caught alone with an unmarried female that the man's sister should be gangraped in retaliation

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

It's Islamic Law Franklin.. the one that says that if a man is caught alone with an unmarried female that the man's sister should be gangraped in retaliation

Ok... fine. But an American jury isn't given a form that says:

Originally Posted by Jury Sentencing Ballot

Choose one:

1. Life in prison
2. Death penalty
3. Gang rape his sister

If an islamic jury wants to prescribe a death penalty under their moral guidelines, I'm cool with that. If they think life in prison will mean gang rape of the accused (close enough), and they go that route, I'm cool with that, too.

I don't see the court needing to take action here unless the jury decides to "write in" the "gang rape his sister" sentence.

[Fritz]

I didn't even know we had islamic gangs in the US. What do they wear, red bandana turbans?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Fritz

I didn't even know we had islamic gangs in the US. What do they wear, red bandana turbans?

They live on the otherside of the Peninsula Fritz.

[Solecismic]

Just one more example of an activist judge who can't tell the difference between fair trial and perfect trial. The Constitution gives people a right to trial by a jury of their peers, not a jury of robots.

Personally, I would prefer the robots, because humans were on the O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake juries, and to me that's proof that the system is irretrievably screwed up. But for now, peers are what we have, and peers are going to have their own quirks, like personal preferences for bible verse.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Just one more example of an activist judge who can't tell the difference between fair trial and perfect trial. The Constitution gives people a right to trial by a jury of their peers, not a jury of robots.

Personally, I would prefer the robots, because humans were on the O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake juries, and to me that's proof that the system is irretrievably screwed up. But for now, peers are what we have, and peers are going to have their own quirks, like personal preferences for bible verse.

"activist judge"? Apparently the judge just disagrees with you on whether it influenced the outcome of the trial. If the judge believes it did, then the judge must enforce the law.

"and peers are going to have their own quirks" Just like some peers might be racist, and I don't think we should let jury verdicts on the basis of race stand either.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

It's like Fritz said... the jury was given the option to prescribe the death sentence under the law. How they get there is irrellevant.

Actually, this is not accurate as a factual matter.

To use North Carolina as an example. A jury is instructed: if you find one or more of the following things to be true, then (and only then) may you sentence the defendant to death:

Originally Posted by N.C.G.S. Section 15A-2000

(e) Aggravating Circumstances. -- Aggravating circumstances which may be considered shall be limited to the following:

(1) The capital felony was committed by a person lawfully incarcerated.

(2) The defendant had been previously convicted of another capital felony or had been previously adjudicated delinquent in a juvenile proceeding for committing an offense that would be a capital felony if committed by an adult.

(3) The defendant had been previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person or had been previously adjudicated delinquent in a juvenile proceeding for committing an offense that would be a Class A, B1, B2, C, D, or E felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person if the offense had been committed by an adult.

(4) The capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody.

(5) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged, or was an aider or abettor, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any homicide, robbery, rape or a sex offense, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy or the unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.

(6) The capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain.

(7) The capital felony was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws.

(8) The capital felony was committed against a law-enforcement officer, employee of the Department of Correction, jailer, fireman, judge or justice, former judge or justice, prosecutor or former prosecutor, juror or former juror, or witness or former witness against the defendant, while engaged in the performance of his official duties or because of the exercise of his official duty.

(9) The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.

(10) The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person by means of a weapon or device which would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person.

(11) The murder for which the defendant stands convicted was part of a course of conduct in which the defendant engaged and which included the commission by the defendant of other crimes of violence against another person or persons.

It is simply not the law that a jury can sentence a defendant to death even if it does not find one of those factors. The juror may beleive that an eye for an eye is a better rule, and that this statute sucks eggs, but (for good or ill) this statute--not eye for an eye--is the law of the land.

Now, when a juror, upon finding one or more of these factors, decides in her discretion whether to authorize the punishment based on her personal, religious beliefs, that is the system working.

When a juror, however, decides to disregard the law and sentence the defendant based on factors outside of the law, then you have a system very different than the system in which we live. And I don't think that it would be a better system, for what it is worth.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I think what the defense (successfully) argued is that when it comes to punishment, you have to use the guidelines as specified by the law, and fit the crime to the law's scale. By going to something outside the law (the Bible, see the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" line..) the defense arged that they went outside the guidelines and that the punishment should be set aside.

Yep. Thumbs up to the Colorado Supreme Court. This was absolutely the right decision.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

To use North Carolina as an example. A jury is instructed: if you find one or more of the following things to be true, then (and only then) may you sentence the defendant to death:

Quite right, and I think most states with the DP have the same rules. You can only find death if you find the following to be true. It doesn't allow you to substitute your own law for the actual law in death penalty sentancing (and shouldn't allow that in regular sentancing either, IMO).

[AENeuman]

Would be nice if the Bible was consistent on punishment. All things being equal might as well use the first instance, Cain and Able. God granted Cain mercy after his murder. God does not seem to mind capitol punishment, He just seems to mind when humans do the punishing.

[Arles]

I would agree with this if some foreman brought in a Bible and tried to manipulate the jury with it (disregarding certain facts). But, if it's just a few jurors quoting parables (ie, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth"), then this is a little silly. People have their own backgrounds and, to me, having a juror decide that the seriousness of the crime dictates the death penalty because of their religious background and beliefs is no different than someone feeling the same way because of non-religious reasons.

It appears that everyone felt there was ample evidence on this person's guilt and the deliberation came on the "punishment" is. This is the one area where a person's morale background will most likely impact their decision. I don't know why this fact would surprise people.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I don't have a problem with a person using their religious background to inform a decision once the legal framework has been settled, but if the jury is simply trying to reach a conclusion on whether an offense fits within a specific aggravating framework, then I also think it's unlikely that religious arguments have any place in the debate. It suggests a discomforting level of juror prejudice (either against or in favor of the death penalty). I don't personally hold with the death penalty, but if someone is not willing to apply it when the law calls for it, then I also don't think they belong on a jury.

[Solecismic]

Any time you bring peers into the equation, you're going to bring in personal biases.

If this is the first step toward eliminating the jury system, then I applaud it. Because the jury system is broken and I don't think it can be fixed.

But I'm sure it isn't part of a plan - just one set of stupid judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it reared up and slapped them in the faces. All this does is cost the taxpayers more money.

[Fritz]

AML,

This is not at odds with what I said, it just more restictive. Since a jury "may" I assume they "may not" as well. If the thing that leans them one direction or the other is a religious system, then I am okay with that.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Actually, this is not accurate as a factual matter.

To use North Carolina as an example. A jury is instructed: if you find one or more of the following things to be true, then (and only then) may you sentence the defendant to death:


It is simply not the law that a jury can sentence a defendant to death even if it does not find one of those factors. The juror may beleive that an eye for an eye is a better rule, and that this statute sucks eggs, but (for good or ill) this statute--not eye for an eye--is the law of the land.

Now, when a juror, upon finding one or more of these factors, decides in her discretion whether to authorize the punishment based on her personal, religious beliefs, that is the system working.

When a juror, however, decides to disregard the law and sentence the defendant based on factors outside of the law, then you have a system very different than the system in which we live. And I don't think that it would be a better system, for what it is worth.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm looking at this from a slightly different angle, and I'd like a clarification from our attorneys. Bear with me.

What is the most likely reason that a person or persons on the Jury brought the Bible up in the first place?

There could have been other reasons, but the most likely scenario to me is that someone was wondering if it was "morally right" to sentence someone to the death penalty, expressed that reservation, and as a result, five jurors looked up the Bible's stance on the matter. Here is the major question I have about that scenario, or any scenario that I can think of in this case: Is it not true that a person who expresses reservations about enforcing the law shouldn't be on a death penalty case in the first place?

Whether a juror liked it or not, whether the Bible said it or not, or whether little angels or devils on the shoulders of the forum said yay or nay, it is a *legal* punishment. Isn't there a problem with a person being on a death penalty case who is potentially unwilling to make a decision based on the law???

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'm looking at this from a slightly different angle, and I'd like a clarification from our attorneys. Bear with me.

What is the most likely reason that a person or persons on the Jury brought the Bible up in the first place?

There could have been other reasons, but the most likely scenario to me is that someone was wondering if it was "morally right" to sentence someone to the death penalty, expressed that reservation, and as a result, five jurors looked up the Bible's stance on the matter. Here is the major question I have about that scenario, or any scenario that I can think of in this case: Is it not true that a person who expresses reservations about enforcing the law shouldn't be on a death penalty case in the first place?

Whether a juror liked it or not, whether the Bible said it or not, or whether little angels or devils on the shoulders of the forum said yay or nay, it is a *legal* punishment. Isn't there a problem with a person being on a death penalty case who is potentially unwilling to make a decision based on the law???

I'm not 100% sure on this but here goes:

1.) The jury agrees that one or more of the reasons to enforce the death penalty has been met. A juror says that, based on the legal standards, she thinks that the guy should get the death penalty, but does not know if she can give it as a Christian (FWIW, a good DA would have found this out before trial and not let her on the jury in the first place). Other jurors discuss her personal objection, including arguments pointing out that one can support the death penalty and still be a good Christian. That, to my knowlege, is OK.

2.) One or more jurors believe that the legal standard to enforce the death penalty has not been met. They decide to sentence the defendant to death anyway because they beleive that all murderers deserve the death penalty. Not OK.

The problem with this discussion is that we don't really know--without reading the case--whether it was circumstance #1 or circumstance #2.

[Fritz]

aml,

I don't think many here would disagree with #2 (not OK that is)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm not 100% sure on this but here goes:

1.) The jury agrees that one or more of the reasons to enforce the death penalty has been met. A juror says that, based on the legal standards, she thinks that the guy should get the death penalty, but does not know if she can give it as a Christian (FWIW, a good DA would have found this out before trial and not let her on the jury in the first place). Other jurors discuss her personal objection, including arguments pointing out that one can support the death penalty and still be a good Christian. That, to my knowlege, is OK.

2.) One or more jurors believe that the legal standard to enforce the death penalty has not been met. They decide to sentence the defendant to death anyway because they beleive that all murderers deserve the death penalty. Not OK.

The problem with this discussion is that we don't really know--without reading the case--whether it was circumstance #1 or circumstance #2.

Gotcha. I hadn't considered #2 as a serious possibility. I can't imagine that an entire group of people could be that stupid.

As far as the DA, is it not an automatic in a death penalty case that every juror is questioned on whether or not they would be willing to sentence someone to death? If it isn't, it certainly seems like it should be a cause for automatic dismissal. It isn't a jury's job to decide whether or not something should be legal, is it?

[Solecismic]

Why pretend that both 1 and 2 don't take place among every jury discussing the death penalty? This is exactly what you get when you have trial by peers. Individual biases, which may well be affected by personal religious biases.

The fact that this entered open discussion is the only unusual part of this case.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Any time you bring peers into the equation, you're going to bring in personal biases.

If this is the first step toward eliminating the jury system, then I applaud it. Because the jury system is broken and I don't think it can be fixed.

I think a lot of people believe this, and it is just frightening to me.

But I'm sure it isn't part of a plan - just one set of stupid judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it reared up and slapped them in the faces. All this does is cost the taxpayers more money.

Ok, this is something that bothers me. Simply because these justices disagree with you does not make them stupid. I'm sure thay have a firm grasp of constitutional law. It's just a different interpretation than yours. Scalia, O' Connor, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Kennedy voted to uphold a death sentence for a man whose court appointed lawyer had represented the victim up until the time of his death. I've never disagreed with a decision more than that one, but I'd never say they were stupid and didn't know anything about the constitution.

Also, I'm confused as to how this will cost taxpayers more money?

[SirFozzie]

If a person cannot in good conscience uphold the law and vote for the death penalty should the law suggest it as punishment, then they are excused from cases where if found guilty, the criminal could be sentenced to death.

[Solecismic]

Larry, I think a lot of people believe in the jury system as it works today, and I find that terrifying myself. Especially when it comes to what hapepens when scientific evidence is part of a trial.

The Supreme Court is mostly full of idiots. It has nothing to do with personal disagreement. These are political appointees, and are mostly chosen for their beliefs. They're usually among the worst judges, not the best. Rehnquist, for instance, is just about illiterate. I've read some of his opinions, and I doubt he's capable of coherent thought. The guy was senile 30 years ago.

Unnecessary appeals and new trials inevitably lead to greater taxpayer costs. Letting criminals out of jail on technicalities (which is in vogue today) inevitably leads to higher crime, which also costs taxpayers.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Supreme Court is mostly full of idiots. It has nothing to do with personal disagreement. These are political appointees, and are mostly chosen for their beliefs. They're usually among the worst judges, not the best. Rehnquist, for instance, is just about illiterate. I've read some of his opinions, and I doubt he's capable of coherent thought. The guy was senile 30 years ago.

Just about every Supreme Court Justice (with the exception of Thomas) was considered a very good justice before appointment to the Supreme Court. Rehnquist, for one, finished 1st in his class at Stanford Law and was confirmed by a wide margin by the Senate. Back during the time of his confirmation, it was no where near as political as it is today. Rehnquist also has written some great legal opinions and is far from 'illiterate'. He writes very well in his legal opinions. He'll also be recognized as one of the most important justices in SCOTUS history.

[Peregrine]

What is the most likely reason that a person or persons on the Jury brought the Bible up in the first place?

I think part of the reason (from what I understood in the NYT article) is specific language in Colorado law not necessarily in place everywhere that may have led the jury to bring the Bible into play. From the article I linked earlier in the thread:

"After Mr. Harlan's conviction, the judge in the case - as Colorado law requires - sent the jury off to deliberate about the death penalty with an instruction to think beyond the narrow confines of the law. Each juror, the judge told the panel, must make an "individual moral assessment," in deciding whether Mr. Harlan should live.

Legal experts said that Colorado was unusual in its language requiring jurors in capital felony cases to explicitly consult a moral compass. Most states that have restored the death penalty weave in a discussion of moral factors, lawyers said, along with the burden that jurors must decide whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors in voting on execution."

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'm looking at this from a slightly different angle, and I'd like a clarification from our attorneys. Bear with me.

What is the most likely reason that a person or persons on the Jury brought the Bible up in the first place?

There could have been other reasons, but the most likely scenario to me is that someone was wondering if it was "morally right" to sentence someone to the death penalty, expressed that reservation, and as a result, five jurors looked up the Bible's stance on the matter. Here is the major question I have about that scenario, or any scenario that I can think of in this case: Is it not true that a person who expresses reservations about enforcing the law shouldn't be on a death penalty case in the first place?

Whether a juror liked it or not, whether the Bible said it or not, or whether little angels or devils on the shoulders of the forum said yay or nay, it is a *legal* punishment. Isn't there a problem with a person being on a death penalty case who is potentially unwilling to make a decision based on the law???

You are exactly right, and this really goes to the heart of the decision. A juror who would either (a) refuse to apply the death penalty under any circumstances or (b) would automatically apply the death penalty under all circumstances, cannot sit on a death penalty case.

In this case, prior to the discovery of what had happened in the jury room, the defendant moved to vacate the death penalty verdict on the grounds that the jurors were predisposed to the death penalty. The trial court denied the motion and was affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court, but, as it noted in the present case:

"In that opinion [affirming the death penalty verdict], we expressed particular concern about the voir dire that resulted in the jury’s selection. Several of the jurors who were seated had expressed views favoring the death penalty for all persons convicted of first degree murder. However, they all answered in response to followup questions that they would listen to the evidence, follow the court’s legal instructions in the guilt and penalty phases of the trial, apply the fourstep process for the penalty phase as the trial court would instruct, and not automatically vote for the death penalty. While we were “deeply troubled by the number of times the trial court failed to resolve contradictory or equivocal statements by jurors,” id. at 465, and characterized the voir dire as “inherently problematic,” id. at 468, we concluded that the trial court’s voir dire rulings were supported by the evidence and were constitutionally sufficient. Id."

So, you had a situation where the jurors appeared predisposed to the death penalty, but, nevertheless, the supreme court, with reservations, affirmed the death penalty verdict, because the jurors had promised, under oath, that they would based their decision on the court's instructions (and only those instructions) and not automatically vote for the death penalty.

The jury, which was sequestered in this high profile case, began deliberating on a Friday and worked late into the night, but they could not reach a unanimous decision. After returning to their rooms for the night, several jurors turned to the bible to find guidance on how they should vote. They paid particular attention to a passage from Leviticus that said, "whoever kills a man shall be put to death." The next morning the jury resumed its deliberations. Several of the jurors brought their bibles and notes from their biblical research and shared them with other jurors. By noon that day (i.e., almost immediately), they came to a unanimous decision in favor of the death penalty.

When this was discovered, the defendant again moved to set aside the death penalty verdict. This time the trial court granted the motion and the Colorado Supreme Court, in the decision we are now discussing, affirmed that ruling. The opinion contains extensive analysis, but this passage sums up their reasoning pretty well:

"We do not hold that an individual juror may not rely on and
discuss with the other jurors during deliberation his or her
religious upbringing, education, and beliefs in making the
extremely difficult “reasoned judgment” and “moral decision” he
or she is called upon to make in the fourth step of the penalty
phase under Colorado law. We hold only that it was improper for
a juror to bring the Bible into the jury room to share with
other jurors the written Leviticus and Romans texts during
deliberations; the texts had not been admitted into evidence or
allowed pursuant to the trial court’s instructions.
We expect jurors to bring their backgrounds and beliefs to
bear on their deliberations but to give ultimate consideration
only to the facts admitted and the law as instructed. The
judicial system works very hard to emphasize the rarified,
solemn and sequestered nature of jury deliberations; jurors must
deliberate in that atmosphere without the aid or distraction of
extraneous texts that could prejudicially influence the verdict.

The written word persuasively conveys the authentic ring of
reliable authority in a way the recollected spoken word does
not. Some jurors may view biblical texts like the Leviticus
passage at issue here as a factual representation of God’s will.
The text may also be viewed as a legal instruction, issuing from
God, requiring a particular and mandatory punishment for murder.
Such a “fact” is not one presented in evidence in this case and
such a “legal instruction” is not the law of the state or part
of the court’s instructions."

[clintl]

Isn't this the heart of the problem?

Harlan was sentenced to death in 1995, but defense lawyers learned that five jurors had looked up such Bible verses as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," copied them and discussed them while deliberating behind closed doors.

The jurors brought outside material into the courtroom. This is no different than a juror looking up any other outside research, or conducting outside experiments. Jurors routinely get kicked off juries for that kind of conduct, and mistrials get declared because of it. This is not a case where religious belief and the Bible are being excluded for special reasons. It's a case where they are being treated exactly the same as any other evidence not presented at trial. To not have acted as the Colorado Supreme Court did would have been an instance of giving special favorable treatment to the Bible.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Just one more example of an activist judge who can't tell the difference between fair trial and perfect trial. The Constitution gives people a right to trial by a jury of their peers, not a jury of robots.

Wrong. It was an example of judges enforcing a very simple instruction that is given to every jury - consider only the evidence presented in the courtroom, and do not conduct any research on the subject outside of court.