Jury Can't Use Bible in Death Penalty Case?

[dilloduck]

Agreed, but apparently there is evidence they went beyond the law in reaching their decision, which, no matter what spin you put on it, was inappropriate.

Equal treatment under the law for all cannot be attained unless we are all held to the same standards.

Could you please provide a link to this "evidence" ?

 

[Mr. P]

Again, the Bible does not contradict Colorado law, at least not in this case, so I can't see where this is inappropriate.

You're kidding arn't ya?

 

[5stringJeff]

Again, Juries in CO are not allowed to use any source other than the court for information in regards to their decisions. It isn't just the Bible as I explained before there was once a Death Penalty overturned because the Jury looked up a word in the Dictionary. Of course not allowing them access to a Dictionary isn't as big as no Bible and therefore not newsworth.

So if one or more of the jurors had memorized that verse, and had used it verbally during delibarations, would it still be invalidated?

 

[MissileMan]

Again, the Bible does not contradict Colorado law, at least not in this case, so I can't see where this is inappropriate.

Because unless all juries are consulting the bible, not all of the defendants are getting equal treatment under the law.

 

[MissileMan]

Could you please provide a link to this "evidence" ?

Refer to the original article where they discuss this guys death sentence being commuted.

 

[manu1959]

So if one or more of the jurors had memorized that verse, and had used it verbally during delibarations, would it still be invalidated?

nope...the issue was .... they brought a bible into the jury room .... you are not allowed to bring anything into the jury room except that which is allowed by the judge.

 

[Annie]

Because unless all juries are consulting the bible, not all of the defendants are getting equal treatment under the law.

No two juries are alike. No 2 cases are exactly alike.

 

[dilloduck]

Because unless all juries are consulting the bible, not all of the defendants are getting equal treatment under the law.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[dmp]

Because unless all juries are consulting the bible, not all of the defendants are getting equal treatment under the law.

Nobody gets equal treatment under a jury's decision. That's the point.

OJ had a Jury.

So did Scott Peterson.

 

[5stringJeff]

nope...the issue was .... they brought a bible into the jury room .... you are not allowed to bring anything into the jury room except that which is allowed by the judge.

So why is it that Biblical maxims applied from memory would be valid, but Biblical maxims that are referenced from the source are invalid? Am I the only one who sees this as ridiculous?

 

[Annie]

So why is it that Biblical maxims applied from memory would be valid, but Biblical maxims that are referenced from the source are invalid? Am I the only one who sees this as ridiculous?

No.

 

[MissileMan]

No two juries are alike. No 2 cases are exactly alike.

Agreed, but they should all follow the same standards. If not, you might as well shut down the courts.

 

[Mr. P]

No two juries are alike. No 2 cases are exactly alike.

Which is exactly why the guidelines for a jury to follow are "EXACTLY" the same.
In the same type cases of course.

 

[Annie]

Agreed, but they should all follow the same standards. If not, you might as well shut down the courts.

No. As I said previously, if the defendent wishes 'just the laws' they would chose a judge over jury. Most recognize that 'people' bring more than just 'the law.'

You know I don't think the feds should have intervened in Terri's case, but I'd be willing to bet that if a jury was 'finding facts' it would have been a bit of a different outcome.

 

[ReillyT]

nope...the issue was .... they brought a bible into the jury room .... you are not allowed to bring anything into the jury room except that which is allowed by the judge.

I actually think that this might be wrong. The only sources juries are supposed to use, and we assume they use, when making decisions are the law as provided by the judge and the evidence. I don't think it would have changed the outcome if the verses were recited from memory or read out of the book.

In this case, the assumption that the jury looked at only the law and the evidence was overcome by jurors reading from the bible in deliberations. I don't think it mattered that it was the bible though, it could just as easily have been a book of Kantian philosophy or (as No1toVote4 pointed out) a dictionary.

 

[no1tovote4]

So if one or more of the jurors had memorized that verse, and had used it verbally during delibarations, would it still be invalidated?

If it was proven that it was done then yes. The same would be done with a Doctor who would be able to basically testify to a jury about surgical scarring and teach them more than the courts allowed as evidence.

In almost every case Juries can cross the line, in most cases they will not be overturned. In this case outside information was used at the wrong time in order to change a person's mind.

 

[manu1959]

So why is it that Biblical maxims applied from memory would be valid, but Biblical maxims that are referenced from the source are invalid? Am I the only one who sees this as ridiculous?

that is not the issue ..... the issue was the jury brought refernce material into the jury room that was not know to the judge before they brought it in....the law says that the verdict must be tossed ....

 

[dilloduck]

Which is exactly why the guidelines for a jury to follow are "EXACTLY" the same.
In the same type cases of course.

Then you may as well just toss the law books out the window----if judges are going to get so petty, all the laws are worthless.

 

[Annie]

that is not the issue ..... the issue was the jury brought refernce material into the jury room that was not know to the judge before they brought it in....the law says that the verdict must be tossed ....

Now that makes sense.

 

[manu1959]

If it was proven that it was done then yes. The same would be done with a Doctor who would be able to basically testify to a jury about surgical scarring and teach them more than the courts allowed as evidence.

In almost every case Juries can cross the line, in most cases they will not be overturned. In this case outside information was used at the wrong time in order to change a person's mind.

actually the answer to your first statement is that memorizing a verse and using it can be done....bring unapproved reference material into a jury room is not allowed