Jury Can't Use Bible in Death Penalty Case?

[ReillyT]

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.

Thank you. I missed that.

 

[no1tovote4]

Thank you. I missed that.

NP. We are hearing about this stuff ad infinitum here on talk radio. I know more about this than I ever wanted to.

 

[ReillyT]

I have to go, but as always, it was a pleasure posting with you all. Have a nice day.

 

[dilloduck]

I have to go, but as always, it was a pleasure posting with you all. Have a nice day.

enjoy !!

 

[manu1959]

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

excellent we agree.........rep 4 U

 

[Bonnie]

I'll have to try that. Or say I am a racist or worse yet even, declare I am a "born again Christian".

Use the last one and not only will you be excused you might get tossed out.

 

[no1tovote4]

Use the last one and not only will you be excused you might get tossed out.

Maybe a group of people with pitchforks would appear to make it look more medieval....

 

[manu1959]

Maybe a group of people with pitchforks would appear to make it look more medieval....

hey No 1,


do you have a link to a law that says you can not state personal opinions in a jury room?

 

[Mr. P]

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.

Oh yea! The bench needs to stay as far away from this as they can.

 

[no1tovote4]

hey No 1,


do you have a link to a law that says you can not state personal opinions in a jury room?

Personal opinions are allowed, it is extra facts that are not. Whether they come from a dictionary, a Bible, your head, etc. The Jury is not allowed to testify or to try a case they are only to take the evidence presented into account whem making the decision. If you read the text of the decision in this case the CO Supremes made that clear as well.

It isn't that the Bible was not allowed in the Jury room, it was the verse that was not allowed to be put into testimony from an outside source regardless of the source.

 

[dilloduck]

Personal opinions are allowed, it is extra facts that are not. Whether they come from a dictionary, a Bible, your head, etc. The Jury is not allowed to testify or to try a case they are only to take the evidence presented into account whem making the decision. If you read the text of the decision in this case the CO Supremes made that clear as well.

It isn't that the Bible was not allowed in the Jury room, it was the verse that was not allowed to be put into testimony from an outside source regardless of the source.

so personal knowledge and experience is a no no??---damn--Jimmy Stewart screwed up BIG TIME in 12 Angry Men

 

[no1tovote4]

so personal knowledge and experience is a no no??---damn--Jimmy Stewart screwed up BIG TIME in 12 Angry Men

More often than not there is something discussed in a Jury room that would negate the proceedings. It isn't something that is often used to overturn cases either, this is because Juries are not trained to perform their duties as required but are impressed into service. Most of the time the errors are overlooked but when I was in Jr. High we watched a case that the perp was set free because a doctor explained different types of surgical scars when he was a member of a jury. His opinion would be welcomed it was the experience and information that was not allowed. The Judge called it testifying and explained why it could not be done.

 

[dilloduck]

More often than not there is something discussed in a Jury room that would negate the proceedings. It isn't something that is often used to overturn cases either, this is because Juries are not trained to perform their duties as required but are impressed into service. Most of the time the errors are overlooked but when I was in Jr. High we watched a case that the perp was set free because a doctor explained different types of surgical scars when he was a member of a jury. His opinion would be welcomed it was the experience and information that was not allowed. The Judge called it testifying and explained why it could not be done.

So i guess it was just a "coincidence" that that biblical stuff got tossed ?

 

[no1tovote4]

So i guess it was just a "coincidence" that that biblical stuff got tossed ?

Pretty much.

Had they looked at a history text for historical references to the death penalty it would have the same result.

As you know I am an avid defender of religious freedom, if I understood this to be a decision based solely on the fact it was a Bible I would be one of the people shouting the loudest against it.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand legal ethics and why some things were decided but it is good to talk about what happened and why so we can gain better understanding.

 

[sitarro]

I'll have to try that. Or say I am a racist or worse yet even, declare I am a "born again Christian".

If you don't want to serve on a jury , which I completely understand , it isn't very difficult to be disqualified . I believe that if you are an informed individual with a brain , one of the attorneys will get rid of you .
I was in a jury pool in Colorado for a felony menacing case . The charge was felony menacing with a gun .When the defense attorney questioned us as to whether we had ever been threatened before , my hand went up . He asked me to elaborate . I told them that I was shown a 45 caliber handgun on highway 36 going to Boulder . He asked me how I felt at the time . I told him I felt threatened then looked at the defendent and said "menaced!" I was gone after that , the attorney couldn't get rid of me quick enough. :2guns:

 

[sitarro]

Pretty much.

Had they looked at a history text for historical references to the death penalty it would have the same result.

As you know I am an avid defender of religious freedom, if I understood this to be a decision based solely on the fact it was a Bible I would be one of the people shouting the loudest against it.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand legal ethics and why some things were decided but it is good to talk about what happened and why so we can gain better understanding.

Ha ha ha , you used legal and ethics in the same sentence . . .ha ha ha

 

[dilloduck]

Pretty much.

Had they looked at a history text for historical references to the death penalty it would have the same result.

As you know I am an avid defender of religious freedom, if I understood this to be a decision based solely on the fact it was a Bible I would be one of the people shouting the loudest against it.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand legal ethics and why some things were decided but it is good to talk about what happened and why so we can gain better understanding.

Agreed---I would never want to avoid a discussion like this just so we could always agree--dissenetion is important--some just are too scared to risk it.

I'm not even sure I would Identify myself as "christian" but the attempt to squelch it seems quite pervasive---I probably over reacted a bit to this one

 

[freeandfun1]

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A federal jury indicated Monday that it may be divided on whether to sentence convicted Kenya embassy bomber Mohamed al-'Owhali to death.

In a note sent to the judge an hour before adjourning the third full day of deliberations, the jurors asked what to do if they could not reach a unanimous verdict.

"The consequence is that the defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment," wrote U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand in reply.

"Continue your discussion until you are fully satisfied that no further discussion will lead to a unanimous verdict in favor of death," Sand instructed.

The way the verdict form is printed, the jury's only options are to check off a unanimous verdict for either life imprisonment without the possibility of release or the death sentence. The choice of a non-unanimous verdict does not exist.

Al-'Owhali defense attorney Fred Cohn said the note indicated the jury must be deadlocked and the judge should instruct them to return a sentence of life in prison.

"I don't think we should assume they are deadlocked," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, adding that a deadlock does not mean "they are unanimously against the death penalty."

Fitzgerald, quoting a U.S. Supreme Court decision, said it was in the government's interest to know the "conscience of the community," and that in fairness to the victims the court should ascertain how the jury is divided.

"While victims rights have taken over our lives," Cohn said, "I don't think their comfort is the final issue."

Sand decided to instruct the jury that it should reply it "does not unanimously find that the death sentence is appropriate," if that becomes the panel's conclusion. The consequence would then be a life sentence, all parties agreed.

Al-'Owhali's fate is the hands of the same seven women and five men who decided on May 29 that he was guilty of carrying out with others the August 7, 1998, bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, and that he was guilty of killing the 213 people who died from the explosion.

Al-'Owhali, 24, a Saudi, and three codefendants were also convicted of engaging in a worldwide terrorist conspiracy to kill Americans, a conspiracy allegedly led by Saudi exile Osama bin Laden.

Two of the defendants, Mohamed Odeh, 36, a Jordanian, and Wadih el Hage, 40, a naturalized American, face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, 27, a Tanzanian, also convicted of carrying out a nearly simultaneous truck bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, where 11 people died, will be subject to a death penalty proceeding after al-'Owhali's sentence is decided.

Earlier Monday, jurors signaled they were focusing on defense arguments to spare al-'Owhali the death penalty.

The arguments, known as mitigating factors, appear at the end of a list of 18 questions the jury must answer before voting on punishment.

There are 11 aggravating factors that fall under the prosecution's domain and seven mitigating factors that fall under the defense's. While a few aggravating factors are prerequisites to a death sentence, most factors serve as a non-binding guide to organize deliberations.

Aggravating factors include whether al-'Owhali poses a continued, dangerous threat to society, even behind bars.

Mitigating factors include whether al-'Owhali was indoctrinated in ultra-conservative Muslim teachings that promoted "jihad," or holy war, and martyrdom.

The jury in a previous note asked whether "jurors' personal knowledge, such as developmental psychology, social learning, and abnormal personality can be used" in their deliberations.

In reply, Sand told the panel to draw on "all of the knowledge, training, education, and experience you have acquired during your lifetime" but instructed them to "base your decision only on evidence presented, using your knowledge and experience to weigh that evidence."

In his original instructions last week, Sand said, "your decision on the question of punishment is a uniquely personal judgment which the law, in the final analysis, leaves up to each of you."

 

[dilloduck]

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A federal jury indicated Monday that it may be divided on whether to sentence convicted Kenya embassy bomber Mohamed al-'Owhali to death.

In a note sent to the judge an hour before adjourning the third full day of deliberations, the jurors asked what to do if they could not reach a unanimous verdict.

"The consequence is that the defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment," wrote U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand in reply.

"Continue your discussion until you are fully satisfied that no further discussion will lead to a unanimous verdict in favor of death," Sand instructed.

The way the verdict form is printed, the jury's only options are to check off a unanimous verdict for either life imprisonment without the possibility of release or the death sentence. The choice of a non-unanimous verdict does not exist.

Al-'Owhali defense attorney Fred Cohn said the note indicated the jury must be deadlocked and the judge should instruct them to return a sentence of life in prison.

"I don't think we should assume they are deadlocked," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, adding that a deadlock does not mean "they are unanimously against the death penalty."

Fitzgerald, quoting a U.S. Supreme Court decision, said it was in the government's interest to know the "conscience of the community," and that in fairness to the victims the court should ascertain how the jury is divided.

"While victims rights have taken over our lives," Cohn said, "I don't think their comfort is the final issue."

Sand decided to instruct the jury that it should reply it "does not unanimously find that the death sentence is appropriate," if that becomes the panel's conclusion. The consequence would then be a life sentence, all parties agreed.

Al-'Owhali's fate is the hands of the same seven women and five men who decided on May 29 that he was guilty of carrying out with others the August 7, 1998, bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, and that he was guilty of killing the 213 people who died from the explosion.

Al-'Owhali, 24, a Saudi, and three codefendants were also convicted of engaging in a worldwide terrorist conspiracy to kill Americans, a conspiracy allegedly led by Saudi exile Osama bin Laden.

Two of the defendants, Mohamed Odeh, 36, a Jordanian, and Wadih el Hage, 40, a naturalized American, face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, 27, a Tanzanian, also convicted of carrying out a nearly simultaneous truck bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, where 11 people died, will be subject to a death penalty proceeding after al-'Owhali's sentence is decided.

Earlier Monday, jurors signaled they were focusing on defense arguments to spare al-'Owhali the death penalty.

The arguments, known as mitigating factors, appear at the end of a list of 18 questions the jury must answer before voting on punishment.

There are 11 aggravating factors that fall under the prosecution's domain and seven mitigating factors that fall under the defense's. While a few aggravating factors are prerequisites to a death sentence, most factors serve as a non-binding guide to organize deliberations.

Aggravating factors include whether al-'Owhali poses a continued, dangerous threat to society, even behind bars.

Mitigating factors include whether al-'Owhali was indoctrinated in ultra-conservative Muslim teachings that promoted "jihad," or holy war, and martyrdom.

The jury in a previous note asked whether "jurors' personal knowledge, such as developmental psychology, social learning, and abnormal personality can be used" in their deliberations.

In reply, Sand told the panel to draw on "all of the knowledge, training, education, and experience you have acquired during your lifetime" but instructed them to "base your decision only on evidence presented, using your knowledge and experience to weigh that evidence."
In his original instructions last week, Sand said, "your decision on the question of punishment is a uniquely personal judgment which the law, in the final analysis, leaves up to each of you."

LOL well all that should be simple for the common juror to understand

 

[Yurt]

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

Only if not inside your skull, else it would have to be introduced as evidence, of what, dear Lord, I have no idea.... :tng: