Posted on 12/09/2005 8:44:22 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court reinstated a California man's death sentence, ruling Thursday that jurors did not invalidate their deliberations by considering biblical arguments in favor of vengeance. The Los Angeles jurors in the 1979 case of Stevie Lamar Fields unanimously agreed that death was the appropriate punishment after their foreman circulated biblical and other religious passages - "an eye for an eye," for example - that seemed to require it.
Biblical references supporting mercy and forgiveness were not circulated in the jury room, according to a lower court's ruling. A federal trial judge in Los Angeles reversed Fields' sentence five years ago, citing jury misconduct. The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate it appears to be the first of its kind and could make Fields, now 49, a candidate for execution in the near future.
Prosecutors have long been barred from appealing to jurors' religious sentiments in urging a vote for death, and jurors have been required to base their decisions on evidence presented in the courtroom rather than factors learned outside.
But the 9th Circuit said Fields' case was different.
Led by Judge Pamela Rymer of Pasadena, the unanimous three-judge panel ruled that "what may be improper or prejudicial when said by a prosecutor may not be so when said by a juror."
Bible verses are the sort of "common knowledge" that jurors may employ in exercising their moral judgment, said the court. It said the Bible verses were not the kinds of extrinsic facts that were barred from the jury's consideration because "they are not, in fact, facts at all."
Agreeing with Rymer were 9th Circuit Judges Alex Kozinski, also of Pasadena, and Barry Silverman of Phoenix.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
The point of an "eye for an eye" is not a LITERAL eye for an eye but rather let the punishment fit the crime.
How stupid can people be?
This from the 9th Circuit?????? Hell may have just frozen over..
Sounds like a relatively conservative panel which may not have been representative of the Ninth Circuit as a whole. We'll know if that is true if the circuit allows rehearing en banc.
Amazing how quickly common sense will return when you learn others are attempting to divide your court.
nah they are worried about being split, old bait and switch
ROFL ..... It's like reverse opposite day!
In other words, the 9th Circuit says that it's OK to consult the Bible because the Bible is just make-believe.
This Circuit is still batting 1.000 on logic.
Probably right....Nothing good ever comes from them.
Roberts must be playing the cards from above.
Bull, this is what the courts tell you, but a juror can vote any dang way they please.
Claire Cooper has an appalling ignorance of the Bible.
The Bible inveighs against vengeance, saying that vengeance belongs exclusively to the Lord.
Capitol punishment is commanded in Genesis 9:6, and elsewhere, and the reason is given also.
And "vengeance" isn't it.
Well, this is just great news. Of course when jurors start consulting the Koran, I'll suddenly realize the precedent that has been set... But I'll just worry about that when it happens. As long as I stay out of legal trouble it will have no real bearing on me anyway. Yaaaay! The 9th circuit finally makes a good decision!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.