Death penalty tossed because jury consulted The Bible
A man convicted of raping a woman at gunpoint for two hours before shooting her has been spared death:
The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the death penalty in a rape-and-murder case because jurors had studied Bible verses such as “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” during deliberations.
On a 3-2 vote, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison without parole for kidnapping 25-year-old cocktail waitress Rhonda Maloney in 1994, raping her at gunpoint for two hours and then fatally shooting her.
The jurors in Harlan’s 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed doors.
The Supreme Court said “at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages to vote for the death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence.”
I’m generally opposed to the death penalty but I am also opposed to judges usurping the functions of a jury.
March 30th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
As I understand it, the defense invited the jury to consider the Bible. The defense lawyer used an appeal to the Bible in his summation in the penalty phase. So naturally someone got a Bible and they checked out his reference – but they also found the “eye for an eye” part.
March 30th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Eh, I think I have to agree with the judge in this. Nothing in the Bible is relevant to whether the defendant met the legal criteria to receive the death penalty, and the fact that the jury is debating it would seem to imply they’re basing their decision on something other than the law.
March 30th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Everyone mark your calendars. Stormy Dragon and I agree on something.
Now it’s a race to see which one of us commits harikari first. 🙂
March 30th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Your headline is wrong. the verdict was tossed becasue the jurors in question violated the law agaisnt bringing in any outside material to the jury room to use in deliberations. They could have used a copy of a law text and had the same result.
March 30th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Could have but there would have been no news story. I fail to see why jurors aren’t allowed to consult law or any other reference. ‘Keep the jury stupid’ seems to be the MO.
And of course that’s similar to the actual AP headline: Death Penalty Tossed Over Bible Verses
March 30th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
“I fail to see why jurors aren’t allowed to consult law or any other reference. ‘Keep the jury stupid’ seems to be the MO.”
Well, not really. they are trying to keep information and issues not related to the case from contmainating the jury. They could not bring in newspaper account sof the case for the same reason; it would contian stuff that had been vetted through the court process, including information that could be prejudicial. Juries are given precise instructions on what the law means, and I think its probably a good idea to keep it that way.
On the other hand, you are right about the headline. Reason 1456 to hate the media …