On Jury Deliberations and Religious Evidence
March 29th, 2005 | by Sean |In response to Myles’s post about this article describing a recent Colorado Supreme Court Decision.
I decided that my blog would be a better avenue for discussion because I have a few thoughts on this.
A bit of background: the Colorado Supreme Court commuted sentence for a convicted murderer because jurors considered the Bible (specifically passages describing “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth…” etc.) during deliberations.
Myles comment (reproduced below) not only reeks of paranoia, but does not consider the nature of the judicial system. Despite what Myles may think, this has nothing to do with Christianity or even religious freedom.
It’s different in the judges’ eyes because christianity is involved. There seems to be a trend of dismissing anything that could possibly be related to christianity.
This has everything to do with juror misconduct.
To back up the bus a bit, we must recognize that the entire idea of a jury is to consider evidence as admitted in the trial proceedings. Unless a bible and/or specific passages in the bible were admitted to evidence, a bible is wholly out of the scope for deliberations. The purpose of a jury is to consider admitted evidence and apply that in a decision framework under civic law.
The simple act of considering the bible is prejudicial and inflammatory. It has no bearing on jury proceedings. (with the caveat above of course) The same goes with any other religious text, or even to any text or material not admitted into evidence.
Now, we need to draw a line here. Considering the bible is out – but one’s individual convictions are not. That’s what makes us human. A juror is perfectly free to consider his or her religious beliefs in their decision, and possibly even to raise those concerns during deliberations if appropriate.
Software Developer, Consultant, and Geek.
6 Responses to “On Jury Deliberations and Religious Evidence”
By cthrax on Mar 29, 2005 | Reply
Paranoia has nothing to do with my objection to this case. My objection stems from the questionablity of the verdict only arising after the Bible was introduced.
The Nebraska “Juror’s Handbook” says about a juror’s duty “You are expected to use your common sense, common knowledge, and experience as a mature person in arriving at a verdict.” As I said in my comment (one of the portions you didn’t reproduce), I don’t think that something like bible quotes should be a discussion topic amongst the jurors, however a personal juror’s reasoning should be able to be backed up through their “experience as a mature person” of which could easily include the Bible. See as 75%+ of the US is currently of a Christian faith, I could also argue that would fall under “common knowledge.”
The last paragraph of your above statement is exactly what I’m arguing especially the line “A juror is perfectly free to consider his or her religious beliefs in their decision, and possibly even to raise those concerns during deliberations…” I feel that the judges should not have repealed the verdict simply because a juror was doing just that. I also feel that it would become nitpicky to make a distinction between a juror who has memorized bible passages and one who brings a slip of paper with passages written on it.
By pikamagi on Mar 29, 2005 | Reply
Not at all.
According to the article, “five jurors had looked up Bible verses, copied some of them down and then talked about them behind closed doors.”
This is illegal regardless of how you look at it. We aren’t talking about “a juror” as you describe, but five of them! I am willing to excuse jurors going to the bible for guidance between deliberations (religious conviction), but to copy passages down and deliberate with them – ostensibly to sway other jurors – is absolutely out of bounds.
These jurors acted irresponsibly: they attempted to consider, as a group, material (the bible) that was not admitted as evidence. That is illegal, and grounds for an appeal.
The prosecutors are right though: jurors should be allowed to use their faith to make decisions – individually. There are few to zero cases I can think of where faith is a legitmate discussion point at the deliberation table.
By perkymalleteer on Mar 29, 2005 | Reply
I’m agreeing with Sean that looking up and copying material (from any source) to bring into a jury deliberation is not kosher, particularly if said material was recruited with the intent of changing other jurors’ minds. Actions such as this don’t qualify as “common sense”, “common knowledge”, or “experience as a mature person”.
Of course, a person’s faith and convictions should be involved in his decisions at the deliberation table, but the lines need to be drawn somewhere.
By cthrax on Mar 30, 2005 | Reply
At the risk of being redundant (“It would be presumptuous to make a discussion of Biblical teachings amongst a group of jurors…”) I completely agree that a juror quoting the bible with intent to sway other jurors would be wrong. However, there is only reporter speculation as to whether that was how the quotes were presented. In fact, the only thing mentioned in any of the stories besides additional speculation by the defense attorney, is that the talking took place behind closed doors.
According to Justice Nancy Rice “Bible discussions that occurred took up little time and were not meant to convince other jurors to vote for the death penalty.” The picture being painted of five jurors conspiring to sway the other jurors with their bible quotations is on the verge of absurdity. I maintain that the only reason a big deal was made out of this is that the quotes came out of a religous text. Had five jurors written down quotes from one of the Harry Potter books to take in with them, then nothing would have been said.
By evillie on Apr 1, 2005 | Reply
I’d need to do some research on how court proceedings work (specifically, this was sentencing, not determining guilt) before replying to most of this, but there’s one bit Sean said that seemed to warrant input:
” Considering the bible is out – but one’s individual convictions are not.”
To be fair to the people who brought the passages in, many individuals’ convictions are defined by the Bible. There may be few or no decisions they make that aren’t guided by that book.
As much as people seem to think otherwise, you cannot work religion out of any system where we make moral decisions. There is no line to draw sometimes, unless you’re asserting that those people should be left out. Which is what I think Myles’ fear is.
By Blinkling on Apr 5, 2005 | Reply
My dad says he’s seen trials thrown out because the jury had consluted the dictionary. The only reason this has become a popular story is because the Bible slant is sensational.