The Colorado Court’s decision to overturn the death sentence conviction because some of the jurors consulted the Bible is generating a bit of discussion around the web. (Here is the actual court ruling in pdf).
Or, said another way, the court has ruled to discriminate against jurors with poor memories (see the dissenting opinion highlighted below).
In a sharply divided ruling, Colorado’s highest court on Monday upheld a lower court’s decision throwing out the sentence of a man who was given the death penalty after jurors consulted the Bible in reaching a verdict. The Bible, the court said, constituted an improper outside influence and a reliance on what the court called a “higher authority.”
“The judicial system works very hard to emphasize the rarified, solemn and sequestered nature of jury deliberations,” the majority said in a 3-to-2 decision by a panel of the Colorado Supreme Court. “Jurors must deliberate in that atmosphere without the aid or distraction of extraneous texts.”
Check out what James Joyner has to say here.
Presumably, people who would consult the Bible for clues in how to weigh delicate moral issues are deeply religious. What if the same people had relied on their understanding of religious teaching but without actually looking anything up in the book? Would that be permissible? I’m guessing yes. What’s the difference, exactly?
Presumably, jurors in Colorado can refer to notes or, for example, a judge’s written instrtuctions in order to clarify questions they might have. Thus, this is not an injuction against jurors with bad memories.
And Jeffrey over at ThreeBadFingers has a stinging review.
As I read this, jurors are expected to take from their experiences, convictions, backgrounds and beliefs to make reasoned judgment and moral decision, so long as the source of that reasoned judgment and moral decision is not distracting or prejudicial, unless it is recalled from memory without assistance of written text, because written text may carry to much authority, producing certainty in one’s own moral decision and reasoned judgment. Ah, now it is clear. Certainly this is Judicial Reasoning at its finest.
Note that the dissenting judges in the case had the following to say:
To this end, the court instructed the jurors to “apply [their] reasoned judgment in deciding whether the situation calls for life imprisonment or the imposition of the death penalty” (emphasis added). The court further told the jurors that “you must still all make a further individual moral assessment of whether you have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty, instead of life in prison, is the appropriate punishment for [Harlan] in this case” (emphasis added). As such, the jury instructions squarely directed the jurors to consider their moral and religious precepts, as well as their general knowledge, when making a reasoned judgment about whether or not to impose the death penalty.
The biblical passages at issue here constituted either a part of the jurors’ moral and religious precepts or their general knowledge, and therefore were relevant to the jurors’ court-sanctioned individual moral assessment.
And this…
However, by choosing to define the written version of these commonly known biblical passages as “a higher authority,” the majority elevates form over substance. Many people know large parts of the Bible by heart and can quote certain passages verbatim with persuasive alacrity, particularly when the ideas in those passages are as widespread and generally known as those referenced here. It is without doubt that a juror may relate passages of scripture from memory during deliberations, and that such recitation would not even be considered extraneous, much less prejudicial. It makes little sense, therefore, that the exact same passage in written form is somehow enshrined with an authority that the spoken or remembered passage lacks. In so holding, the majority puts death penalty jurors in an impossible bind; jurors are instructed to make the ultimate decision about life or death based on their individual moral assessment – so long as their individual moral assessments are made from memory.
Red State Law Blog has more:
The Secular Taliban strikes again. They won’t be happy until religion is extirpated from our society and culture. I am not a big fan of the death penalty, but I am deeply disturbed by decisions like this that treat discussion of Bible verses by jurors as unlawful.
TenPal comments on Three Bad Fingers’ discussion:
Three Bad Fingers covers more judicial fun as we swear on the Bible, then use tongs to remove it from the courtroom because it is “distracting and prejudicial” (I can think of one bad finger that will do here).
BlogBat, in a post titled “Jurors Gone Wild” has this to say:
Never mind the numerous biblical references made by the defense in the trial along with those of their own witnesses and the defendant himself, apparently biblical morality can only be consulted to get a person out of a conviction. Also never mind the fact jurors are instructed to use their personal value systems as moral guidance in their decisions.
Legal XXX also has an opinion:
I’m tempted to chalk this up to judicial arrogance, but arrogance at least sometimes has the veil of intelligence.
You'll love Woods' Edge at Salt Creek Golf Retreat, Brown County, Indiana.
