Jury Can't Use Bible in Death Penalty Case?

[dilloduck]

Just tell them you have memorized Leviticus and believe that all of the Old Testament laws still apply to mankind.

Using Christians honesty as a tool against them will work even better than simply legislating them into impotency

 

[dilloduck]

The bible is not entered into evidence because a witness chose to swear upon it before testimony. The glass of water that the witness drank from during examination is not evidence either.

Gotcha--a letter of the law guy---I'll surrender and pursue common sense because when THAT fails we're all screwed anyway. You apparently have no problem with that.

 

[Yurt]

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 ....

Exactly.

My question is, how would we feel if someone brought a Quran in the jury room? Would we still defend their right to do so? Afterall, muslims could make up a cross section of the person's jury pool.

 

[manu1959]

Exactly.

My question is, how would we feel if someone brought a Quran in the jury room? Would we still defend their right to do so? Afterall, muslims could make up a cross section of the person's jury pool.

they don't have the right to bring a koran into the jury room....nobody has the right to bring anything into the jury room which the judge has not approved in advance

 

[manu1959]

Well, this time they know cuz they told me on the phone when I called an got my last "excused" absence. I guess they can't, but.... I'm not sure. Last time I told them I didn't receive it until the day before because I had moved.

The letter says you have to call and confirm. So I guess if you don't call, they call you.

and there you go.....things get lost in the mail all the time

 

[Mr. P]

they don't have the right to bring a koran into the jury room....nobody has the right to bring anything into the jury room which the judge has not approved in advance

BINGO!

 

[dilloduck]

BINGO!

but if you know it by heart, you can recite it-----can anyone explain the PRACTICAL difference to me????

 

[manu1959]

but if you know it by heart, you can recite it-----can anyone explain the PRACTICAL difference to me????

jurors have been interviewed by both legal teams and signed off on....the assumption is that they know the person is religious and inclined to recite verse or whatever .... if they didn't figure that out ... tough

 

[no1tovote4]

but if you know it by heart, you can recite it-----can anyone explain the PRACTICAL difference to me????

Once again, you cannot. Specifically in the opinion put out by the Court it was the text of the verse that was not allowed. In effect the Juror testified in the case but not in court, it simply is not allowed. Even if the Juror were quoting from Memory the same problem exists.

It would be the same with any other reference material, memorized or otherwise. If a Doctor were on a Jury in a Medical case they could not give information to the jury that was not put into evidence regardless of how salient to the case it may be. Jurists cannot testify, nor are they investigators. They are not allowed to investigate, try, testify, or any other thing. They are only allowed to make decisions based on given testimony and evidence.

 

[dilloduck]

Once again, you cannot. Specifically in the opinion put out by the Court it was the text of the verse that was not allowed. In effect the Juror testified in the case but not in court, it simply is not allowed. Even if the Juror were quoting from Memory the same problem exists.

It would be the same with any other reference material, memorized or otherwise. If a Doctor were no a Jury in a Medical case they could not give information to the jury that was not put into evidence regardless of how salient to the case it may be. Jurists cannot testify.

so you cannot even tell the rest of the jury why you believe the way you do???

 

[ReillyT]

but if you know it by heart, you can recite it-----can anyone explain the PRACTICAL difference to me????

I agree with No1toVote4, and apparently the court opinion agrees with us, that there is no practical difference and a new trial would have been ordered either way (whether the passage was discussed during deliberation after reading it or reciting it by memory). Individual jurors have their own philosophical and religious opinions, but when a bible passage (or a passage from a philosophical treatise or the law of another jurisdiction) is discussed during deliberations, it calls question upon the basis for the decision (were legal instructions by the judge and evidence presented being followed) and a court would order a new trial.

 

[Yurt]

they don't have the right to bring a koran into the jury room....nobody has the right to bring anything into the jury room which the judge has not approved in advance

That was my point. That is why I cited your post

 

[no1tovote4]

so you cannot even tell the rest of the jury why you believe the way you do???

Only using the information in the case. You cannot say that the information was incomplete then hold a class as to why, you are then testifying and attempting to try the case yourself. You are not allowed to do that.

If they tell you X + y = 42, you know that it does not but that was the testimony you cannot effectively change the testimony and tell everybody that you know X + y = 49 and this is why....

 

[freeandfun1]

I agree with No1toVote4, and apparently the court opinion agrees with us, that there is no practical difference and a new trial would have been ordered either way (whether the passage was discussed during deliberation after reading it or reciting it by memory). Individual jurors have their own philosophical and religious opinions, but when a bible passage (or a passage from a philosophical treatise or the law of another jurisdiction) is discussed during deliberations, it calls question upon the basis for the decision (were legal instructions by the judge and evidence presented being followed) and a court would order a new trial.

We can't quote the Bible (I kinda can understant that) but Judges can cite foreign laws for their decisions.... WTF is wrong with our country?

 

[5stringJeff]

Once again, you cannot. Specifically in the opinion put out by the Court it was the text of the verse that was not allowed. In effect the Juror testified in the case but not in court, it simply is not allowed. Even if the Juror were quoting from Memory the same problem exists.

It would be the same with any other reference material, memorized or otherwise. If a Doctor were on a Jury in a Medical case they could not give information to the jury that was not put into evidence regardless of how salient to the case it may be. Jurists cannot testify, nor are they investigators. They are not allowed to investigate, try, testify, or any other thing. They are only allowed to make decisions based on given testimony and evidence.

Again, the problem lies in that one's individual experience will still shine through. For example, a doctor on a jury might know that event X could not have caused injury Y, and so would vote a certain way in the jury delibarations. When asked to explain his vote, he would be forced to talk about his reasoning - which came about from external influences, in this case his vocation. It is impossible to separate such things from a person's influence.

 

[dilloduck]

That was my point. That is why I cited your post

JURY ROOM-------PLEASE LEAVE BRAIN AT THE DOOR BEFORE ENTERING

 

[no1tovote4]

I agree with No1toVote4, and apparently the court opinion agrees with us, that there is no practical difference and a new trial would have been ordered either way (whether the passage was discussed during deliberation after reading it or reciting it by memory). Individual jurors have their own philosophical and religious opinions, but when a bible passage (or a passage from a philosophical treatise or the law of another jurisdiction) is discussed during deliberations, it calls question upon the basis for the decision (were legal instructions by the judge and evidence presented being followed) and a court would order a new trial.

BTW - There is no new trial, the Penalty has been changed to Life w/No Parole. It was only the Penalty Phase where the deliberations were overturned. Since Judges cannot per the SCOTUS give the Death Penalty without the Jury it changed the Penalty not the verdict.

 

[dilloduck]

BTW - There is no new trial, the Penalty has been changed to Life w/No Parole. It was only the Penalty Phase where the deliberations were overturned. Since Judges cannot per the SCOTUS give the Death Penalty without the Jury it changed the Penalty not the verdict.

Whew---

 

[ReillyT]

We can't quote the Bible (I kinda can understant that) but Judges can cite foreign laws for their decisions.... WTF is wrong with our country?

In the decision I think you are referring to (juvenile executions), it kind of makes sense. The test was something fuzzy like the "attitudes of society" (I can't remember exactly) and the justices were trying to bolster their argument by pointing out that U.S. attitudes are similar to (or are conforming to) attitudes in other countries. That said, I didn't think reference to foreign laws was necessary and I think it did more harm (to the reputation of the bench) than good. I don't understand how the attitudes of people in the U.K. or Canada really make any difference or provide any new information about what U.S. attitudes are. I wish they had stayed away from that as well.

 

[no1tovote4]

Again, the problem lies in that one's individual experience will still shine through. For example, a doctor on a jury might know that event X could not have caused injury Y, and so would vote a certain way in the jury delibarations. When asked to explain his vote, he would be forced to talk about his reasoning - which came about from external influences, in this case his vocation. It is impossible to separate such things from a person's influence.

If it is learned that he used that and it influenced the choices of the other jurors it would make it so the other side had reason to have the trial deemed a mistrial.

I cannot remember the case but I have seen it happen, it is why I keep bringing up the Doctor thing, the jurist cannot testify and therefore cannot bring forward new information that was not brought before them at trial without running the risk of tainting the jury. If it is found that a Jurist introduces evidence this way it will either create a mistrial or the case will be dismissed.