Death sentence tossed out over Bible

[attgig]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/23/bible.death.sentence.ap/index.html


Death sentence tossed out over Bible
Friday, May 23, 2003 Posted: 4:33 PM EDT (2033 GMT)


BRIGHTON, Colorado (AP) -- A judge threw out a convicted killer's death sentence Friday, saying the jury improperly relied on the Bible to reach its decision.

Judge John Vigil ordered a new sentencing hearing for Robert Harlan, who was convicted in 1995 of kidnapping, raping and murdering Rhonda Maloney, 25. He also shot a passer-by who tried to help, leaving her paralyzed.

"If any case merits the death penalty, there cannot be serious debate about this case being that case," Vigil wrote. "The death penalty, however, must be imposed in a constitutional manner ... Jury resort to biblical code has no place in a constitutional death penalty proceeding."

Defense attorneys had argued the use of religious works during jury deliberations is improper because the works are not Colorado law. Prosecutors said the use of biblical passages could not have influenced the verdict.

Vigil said the sequestered jury read and discussed biblical passages on punishment in the deliberation room "for the purpose of guiding and directing certain jurors to a particular verdict."

"The jurors' reliance on the specific biblical passages cannot be considered benign," he wrote.

Vigil referred to juror Lana Eaton-Ochoa, who read and wrote down the citation to Romans 13:1, which says "let every soul be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God."

"This and other passages the jurors considered do more than simply encourage jurors to follow the instructions of the court. The passages mandate that death be the penalty for murder," he said.

Eaton-Ochoa testified that she reads the Bible for comfort and wisdom.

The judge criticized court officials for failing to make sure jurors were not exposed to outside influences. "The jury supervision performed in this case was extremely negligent and appallingly lax," he wrote.



I'm sorry, but this is really retarded. When you put a jury together, you're putting together people and their past, their beliefs, and their morals. The stinkin lawyers should have removed that ochoa lady from the jury during jury selection if that was a problem. They shouldn't be giving the excuse that a bible is an external source and that they should be denied a bible when sequestered. that's just retarded, the bible is the foundation of the person's beliefs and morals. it isn't external. I guess the people shouldn't be allowed to read their Koran, Torah, philosophical books, or even a good murder mystery.

and how does that passage "mandate that death be the penalty for murder"? All that says is that God is authority. :shrug:

[le_stick]

Well, you cannot blame the judge for that. After all, he and the police, the lawyer, the district attorney and the likes just want
to have a job. That is why they keep releasing the criminal back to the street or throw out some cases due to some technicality. Because if they really do their job right, there would be less criminal on the street. This would lead to less demand on the police, lawyer and so on and so on...So in order for them to justify that they are needed
they have to do these kind of stunt....my 1.5 cents of course

[sbp]

Any reason to hem up the wheels of justice.

The murdering scum should be :dead: already.

[InfiniteNothing]

A jury is not using their morality, at least they are not supposed to; they are supposed to be using the law and their unbiased judgment.


That is why they keep releasing the criminal back to the street or throw out some cases due to some technicality.

Wow, that was extrodinarily... parinoid. It's not like this guy is being thrown on the streets, he's just being resentenced. The new jury will sentence him to death and all will be fine. They just needed this one case to make a point that people should not use their morality to determine guilt, they should use their logic.

[attgig]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
A jury is not using their morality, at least they are not supposed to; they are supposed to be using the law and their unbiased judgment.

then why isn't the jury full of lawyers and professors of law. because they're most knowledgable about law, no?
I disagree. the jury isn't supposed to be a group of 12 computers that takes in the case, and the law book by which we are governed and say if the defendant was on the good or bad side. Death penalty isn't that easy.

[InfiniteNothing]

Is there an argument somewhere in there? I know they aren't supposed to be computers. They have to make a judgment on what happened. There is some subjectivity in it but no morality. The reason we don't have all lawers do it is because they have certain biases towards the law and because the constitution says trial by peers. Otherwise we could have professional jurors which I don't think would be such a bad idea.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by attgig


then why isn't the jury full of lawyers and professors of law. because they're most knowledgable about law, no?
I disagree. the jury isn't supposed to be a group of 12 computers that takes in the case, and the law book by which we are governed and say if the defendant was on the good or bad side. Death penalty isn't that easy.
what exactly happened in this jury room and how the bible was involved is obviously a little unclear, based on the CNN report.

however, the whole point of having a jury is for a "jury of your peers" to evaluate whether you are guilty of breaking the laws as they are currently written and (in some cases) determine a punishment. all these decisions should be based on the evidence presented in the courtroom.

like i said, it's hard to say exactly how the bible was being used in these jury deliberations. but generally, decisions should be made based on the law, not on a personal moral judgement. at least, that's my opinion ;)