Harlan death sentence tossed (Jury consulted Bible)

Denver Post ^ | May 23 2003 | Jennifer Hamilton, The Associated Press

[Ed Straker]

Harlan death sentence tossed

By Jennifer Hamilton, The Associated Press

Noon - BRIGHTON - A judge today threw out the death sentence for a man convicted of murder, ruling that jurors were improperly exposed to the Bible and passages describing God's view on punishment as they deliberated.

Robert Harlan was ordered to return to Adams County District Court to be resentenced in compliance with state law.

"If any case merits the death penalty, there cannot be serious debate about this case being that case," Judge John J. Vigil wrote. "The death penalty, however, must be imposed in a constitutional manner."

"Jury resort to biblical code has no place in a constitutional death penalty proceeding."

Harlan was convicted in 1995 of kidnapping, raping and murdering Rhonda Maloney, 25. He shot a passer-by who tried to help, leaving her paralyzed.

Harlan attorney Kathleen Lord had argued on appeal that using religious works during deliberations is improper because they are not Colorado law.

Prosecutors argued that the use of biblical passages could not have influenced the verdict.

Neither Lord nor Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant returned a call seeking comment.

In his ruling, Vigil noted that jurors were exposed to Bibles and Bible passages on punishment for murder while they were sequestered during deliberations.

Bibles and notes with biblical passages on punishment were read and discussed among the jurors in the deliberation room prior to a verdict being reached, Vigil said.

He criticized court officials for failing to take steps to insure jurors were not exposed to outside influences.

"The jury supervision performed in this case was extremely negligent and appallingly lax," he wrote.

[taxcontrol]

"The death penalty, however, must be imposed in a constitutional manner."

---

Geee I thought the Constitution included the Bill of Rights which says ".... freedom OF religon" not freedom FROM religon.

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Can the prosecution appeal? If there were ever a jduicial abuse of power, it is this judge's blatantly unconsitutional attempt to force jurors to check their religious convictions at the door.

[lelio]

What exactly happened? Its hard to find out from the article.
If the DA said "God says kill these murderers" and quotes chapter and verse then I the judge was right in tossing the verdict. If, however, one of the jury members said "I think the bible says this" then I don't have a problem with it.

[Servant of the Nine]

It has always been a requirement, in every state, that jurors decide cases based solely on the facts presented at trial and the law as explicated by the Judge.

I don't see any reason to let this jury do otherwise, or next time a jury may try a Ouigi Board and healing crystals to help them decide.

So9

[Ed Straker]

From what I could gather from the TV news story, juror(s) brought it up.

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

It sounded to me like the entire problem was what happened inside the jury room.

[ikka]

It has always been a requirement, in every state, that jurors decide cases based solely on the facts presented at trial and the law as explicated by the Judge.

Actually the jury can go beyond that in the case of jury nullification.

[Abe Froman]

That is patently untrue-----the jury has every right to nullification. The jury has the right to determine not only the facts of the case but the morality and validity of the law in question.


"It is not only his [the juror's] right, but his duty . . . to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."-----John Adams

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."-----John Jay, first U.S. Supreme Court Justice

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

It has always been a requirement, in every state, that jurors decide cases based solely on the facts presented at trial and the law as explicated by the Judge.

Actually, you have a point. I thought this was the sentencing phase, but the article doesn't say that. If they were deliberating the verdict, I'm not sure they should have been discussing punishment at all.

However, if the verdict was overturned solely because of the religious content of the discussion, it still looks unconstitutional to me.

[Abe Froman]

See my above reply.

Insofar as the law specifies the punishment for a particular crime, the jury has a right to consider the punishment as well as the verdict, according to their RIGHT to determing the validity and morality of the law, as well as the facts of the case.

Juries should be fully informed of their right to find whatever verdict they wish, as well as to consider the validity of the law, even their right to disregard the instructions of the judge.

[anniegetyourgun]

Uh oh....someone let their faith beliefs inform their decision. That's no longer allowed in the U.S. Everyone knows we have separation of church and ____________ (insert anything and everything here).

[Alex Murphy]

Ping for later reading

[LiteKeeper]

Legal SPOTREP

[lelio]

a jury may try a Ouigi Board
That would make Court TV a little more interesting.
Come back for the exciting conclusion of the Kennedy Rape Trial where juror #4 speaks to a long dead uncle about how he should decide.

[L,TOWM]

I agreed with you on first blush, but then, thinking about it...

Would you have a problem with some one quoting Aristotle or Imannual Kant, perhaps John Locke or Thomas Hobbes in a jury discussion?

A big difference between some ones philosophical background being invoked in jury discussions, and a jury seeking guidance from inanimate objects or "tea leaves".

[Abe Froman]

"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact,"-----U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in 1920.

[Dave S]

If, however, one of the jury members said "I think the bible says this" then I don't have a problem with it.

When the jury is charged with the case they are supposed to deliberate over the evidence and that only. The judge gives them a briefing on the law involved. Ive heard of similar cases where jurors brought in law books which also is a no-no. I believe the jurors are not allowed to take any books or reading material into the jury room. Just the evidence and the charge from the judge with written instructions on the law of the case. The jury did wrong. The article to me sounded as though the entire jury sat around and consulted the Bible to determine God's "law" in complete contradiction to what the judge told them.

[The Old Hoosier]

Why should the Bible automatically be an invalid source of views on teh death penalty? If they had discussed Rousseau's support for the death penalty, would the judge toss the sentence then? How is that different?

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Here, we're talking about convicting someone. Even if one thinks that "jury nullification" is a good thing, it cannot apply to a conviction, but only to an acquittal.