Jury Can't Use Bible in Death Penalty Case?

[Mr. P]

Speaking of trials etc..Just heard Johney Chockren (SP) died.

 

[manu1959]

Now that makes sense.

family is all criminal defense attorneys....they always tell me what is what

 

[no1tovote4]

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?

They wouldn't. Just as I said before, if there is a Doctor on a Jury during a case that could give more information than given during the trial on say length of tongues, if he did give the information directly from memory it would invalidate their deliberations.

Juries are consistently warned about this strict restriction constantly during a trial and before they are sent for deliberations.

 

[manu1959]

Speaking of trials etc..Just heard Johney Chockren (SP) died.

just confirmed on the radio

 

[MissileMan]

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.

A discussion about whether most jurors are smart enough to be on a jury would probably make a fun discussion in another thread. This is about whether jurors going beyond the law is appropriate.

 

[Annie]

Speaking of trials etc..Just heard Johney Chockren (SP) died.

I will say nothing bad of the dead. :halo:

 

[Mr. P]

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.

"Petty"? I'll bet if your butt is on the line you'll hope to hell their petty.

 

[manu1959]

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.

well the attorney for the case just said that the jury brought a bible into the jury room.... you can't bring things into a jury room that the judge does not approve in advance...if you do...and you are caught...mistrial....or tossed verdict

 

[manu1959]

A discussion about whether most jurors are smart enough to be on a jury would probably make a fun discussion in another thread. This is about whether jurors going beyond the law is appropriate.

well they are smarter than the dude that got caught and is on trial

 

[ReillyT]

well the attorney for the case just said that the jury brought a bible into the jury room.... you can't bring things into a jury room that the judge does not approve in advance...if you do...and you are caught...mistrial....or tossed verdict

You are right that you can't bring bring unauthorized material into a jury room, but I think the emphasis is on what the jury considered, and it wouldn't make any difference if the bible were physically present in the room and discussed or recited from memory and discussed.

 

[5stringJeff]

They wouldn't. Just as I said before, if there is a Doctor on a Jury during a case that could give more information than given during the trial on say length of tongues, if he did give the information directly from memory it would invalidate their deliberations.

Juries are consistently warned about this strict restriction constantly during a trial and before they are sent for deliberations.

So what outside information, or life experience, is a juror allowed to consider? I mean, all of us have gone through things in our lives that have made us the individuals that we are. Should I totally block all memories of the military, my religion, guidance from my parents, etc.? I think that is too much to ask of anyone in the jury box. Our individual experience is what helps us form judgments.

 

[no1tovote4]

Here is the opinion are released by the court.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/opinions/2003/03SA173.pdf

If you notice it wasn't just bringing the Bible in, it was the introduction of the text. This could have been done from memory.

In a Community where "Holy Scripture" has factual and legal import for many citizens and the actual text introduced into the deliberations without authorization by the trial court plainly instructs mandatory imposition of the death penalty, cotrary to state law, its use in the jury room prior to the penalty phase verdict was prejudicial to Harlan.

 

[dilloduck]

"Petty"? I'll bet if your butt is on the line you'll hope to hell their petty.

the ones whose butt was on the line are dead----oh well just chalk it up as another loss for the Christians. Happy Mr. P ?

 

[Avatar4321]

Silly question. Shouldnt they read the Bible so they know this before they ever have to enter a jury deliberation? What's the big deal here?

 

[Bonnie]

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 your not Jeff, but this is liberalism so you must get into the technicalities of it. Lesson 1. Memerize scripture but no bibles in Jury deliberation rooms............

 

[manu1959]

You are right that you can't bring bring unauthorized material into a jury room, but I think the emphasis is on what the jury considered, and it wouldn't make any difference if the bible were physically present in the room and discussed or recited from memory and discussed.

the attorney just stated that you can recite from memory anything you want to make the case in the jury room as long as it is within the guidelines of directions from the judge....in other words you could use "the eye for and eye" argument in advocationg the death penalty in a death penatly case....but you could not sneak a referenc book into the jury room to crib from in making your argument

 

[manu1959]

No your not Jeff, but this is liberalism so you must get into the technicalities of it. Lesson 1. Memerize scripture but no bibles in Jury deliberation rooms............

if the case is about bibles and or a bible was entered into evidence then it can go into the jury room

 

[Mr. P]

... Our individual experience is what helps us form judgments.

There's yer key Jeff.

 

[ReillyT]

the attorney just stated that you can recite from memory anything you want to make the case in the jury room as long as it is within the guidelines of directions from the judge....in other words you could use "the eye for and eye" argument in advocationg the death penalty in a death penatly case....but you could not sneak a referenc book into the jury room to crib from in making your argument

Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think that the decision would have come out differently if a juror had recited from the bible from memory and then the bible passage had been discussed in deliberations. But, perhaps I am wrong.

 

[Bonnie]

if the case is about bibles and or a bible was entered into evidence then it can go into the jury room

That is true!