Death Row inmate denied appeal, jury consulted the bible

[YeahDude]

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/dc/042009_court_turns_down_challenge

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has turned away a challenge from a death row inmate in Texas who claimed his constitutional rights were violated by jurors who consulted a Bible during deliberations.

Jurors reviewed a biblical passage relating that a murderer who used an iron object to kill "shall surely be put to death." They were deciding whether to impose a death sentence on Khristian Oliver for fatally shooting and bludgeoning his victim with the barrel of a gun.

The court previously has said that jurors should base their verdicts only on evidence presented in the courtroom.

But state and federal courts upheld Oliver's sentence, despite testimony that some jurors consulted the passage that described a killing similar to the one Oliver committed.

The case is Oliver v. Quarterman, 08-833.



And his death sentence wasn't overturned? Not knowing the facts of the case, The only thing I can say is his death sentence should have been overturned!

[linusrichard]

I'm not a member of the growing chorus that wants to eliminate the jury system from this country, but I don't think they should be involved in sentencing. Apparently they are in Texas, which makes me wonder what jurors are and are not supposed to consider when imposing a sentence. Let's say they didn't have a Bible handy, but one of them knew the passage very well - could they consider what he had to say about it? Or let's say none of them knew that passage at all well, but they all had Biblically-informed Christian beliefs - could they apply their Christian beliefs to the task at hand? I'd like to say no, but then how should they impose a sentence - Texas uses a jury for the task because apparently they value the idea that members of the community impose their values during sentencing. If these are 12 people who can't separate their Biblical beliefs from their values, what is there to do? But I still feel confident in saying that the jurors shouldn't have consulted a Bible.

ETA: After writing that, I looked up the decision. There was no trouble at all in finding that the consultation of the Bible was a 6th Amendment violation. But the state court made a factual finding that the jury was not substantially influenced by the Bible-reading (apparently, they made their decision, and then checked the Bible to make sure the Lord would be cool with it). The federal court has to give deference to that finding, unless Oliver can provide clear and convincing evidence to rebut it. They held that he did not do this. That's troubling, considering that even if there was such evidence, how would he have had access to it?

But this is interesting:
The only circuit to hold that the Bible is not an external influence is the Fourth Circuit. In Robinson v. Polk, a juror asked the bailiff for a Bible and then read several passages out loud in the jury room-including at least one referring to “an eye for an eye”-to convince the other jurors to vote for a death sentence. The court ruled that “reading the Bible is analogous to the situation where a juror quotes the Bible from memory, which assuredly would not be considered an improper influence.” “[P]recisely because the Bible occupies a unique place in the moral lives of those who believe in it, its teachings cannot blithely be lumped together with a private communication, contact, or tampering with a juror without clear guidance from the Supreme Court.” see also Lenz v. Washington, (following Robinson); Billings v. Polk, (holding that a juror's reading of the Bible at home to assist his decision process did not raise a presumption of prejudice); Burch v. Corcoran, (stating that the jury's consultation of a Bible was not “improper jury communication” because the “Bible quotes, whether stated from memory or read from the book, were ... statements of folk wisdom or of cultural precepts”).(citations omitted)

The Fifth Circuit declined to follow the Fourth Circuit's lead on that point, fortunately.

[Freethinker]

I think you are both possibly guilty of jumping to conclusions. Court rulings often recognize that something improper was done, but also conclude that it didn't affect the outcome of the process. Without more information, you can't tell what the reasoning was.

[Sefarst]

Jurors are permitted to vote their conscience when making their decision. If that includes Bible passages, we have to accept that. We can all certainly think that the particular juror is an idiot and maybe point out to him that the Bible also demands a person be put to death for working on the Sabbath, but he's going to take whatever personal beliefs he has into the deliberation room whether we like it or not.

[linusrichard]

I think you are both possibly guilty of jumping to conclusions. Court rulings often recognize that something improper was done, but also conclude that it didn't affect the outcome of the process. Without more information, you can't tell what the reasoning was.

What conclusion am I jumping to exactly?

[Cainkane1]

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/dc/042009_court_turns_down_challenge



And his death sentence wasn't overturned? Not knowing the facts of the case, The only thing I can say is his death sentence should have been overturned!
If this man committed pre meditated murder then he deserves to die. However it should be done for his crime not what the bi bull says. Would the jury have shown mercy had he killed the person with his bare hands.

[Freethinker]

What conclusion am I jumping to exactly?

You are assuming that the court ruled that consulting the bible was okay. The ruling may have been that consulting the bible was wrong but that it didn't impact the decision.

ETA: But your edit clarifies it.

[linusrichard]

You are assuming that the court ruled that consulting the bible was okay.
No, I wasn't, and I don't really see what I wrote (before the edit or after) that suggests that I was. If I had assumed anything, which I didn't, I would have assumed that the court held that consulting the Bible was harmless error (which would have been correct). And harmless error is, of course, error.
The ruling may have been that consulting the bible was wrong but that it didn't impact the decision.
That is what the ruling was.

[linusrichard]

Jurors are permitted to vote their conscience when making their decision. If that includes Bible passages, we have to accept that. We can all certainly think that the particular juror is an idiot and maybe point out to him that the Bible also demands a person be put to death for working on the Sabbath, but he's going to take whatever personal beliefs he has into the deliberation room whether we like it or not.

I think you're right, but I don't have to like it.

And it doesn't mean you can actually bring the Bible in with you.

[Freethinker]

No, I wasn't, and I don't really see what I wrote (before the edit or after) that suggests that I was.

After rereading, I agree with you. I believe I was ignoring the fact that your post had several questions in it, which I read as statements, making the post look more like a rant (in my mind) than an analysis. It wasn't until the third time I read it that I realized I was misinterpreting the point.

[Fnord]

... Texas uses a jury for the task because apparently they value the idea that members of the community impose their values during sentencing...

... If these are 12 people who can't separate their Biblical beliefs from their values...

For some people, their Biblical beliefs are their values, and can not be separated.

Until Bible believers are prohibited by law from serving on a jury, they will continue to use their Biblically-derived values in reaching a verdict.

But I doubt that there will come a day when "I believe in the Bible" will be an acceptable excuse for dismissal from jury duty ... people would just show up with a few Chick tracts and never have to serve again!

[linusrichard]

For some people, their Biblical beliefs are their values, and can not be separated.

Until Bible believers are prohibited by law from serving on a jury, they will continue to use their Biblically-derived values in reaching a verdict.


Yes, that's pretty much what I meant to be saying.

[INRM]

I'd have to agree with linusrichard that removing the Jury system would be a bad idea.

Still, I think that consulting the bible for determining a death sentance or not is a dumb idea...


INRM

[Skeptical Greg]

Consulting the Bible for anything is a dumb idea..

[KingMerv00]

For those interested in the law behind all this: JNOV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JNOV).

[Radically Rethinking]

The relevant verse is Numbers 35:16...

If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.

Wait a minute, I thought Jesus did away with all that OT law stuff?

[linusrichard]

For those interested in the law behind all this: JNOV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JNOV).

I don't understand how that applies in this case. Are you saying that the trial judge was in error to not set aside the sentence because of the outside material in the jury room? I'm not sure that works.

[qayak]

Wait a minute, I thought Jesus did away with all that OT law stuff?

I thought he died for our sins! Shouldn't the guy have walked on that little bible technicality?

[Erigena]

We boast about the division of church and state here in the U.S., but we still ask people to swear on the bible prior to their testimony, so we're opening the door. In some states, jurors are also asked to swear on the bible. It isn't restricted to the statements of witnesses, defendants, etc.

That said, their faith and their values being intertwined shouldn't allow them to consult an archaic text for resolution in the courts. I don't think the decision should be overturned because as someone noted earlier, if it was premeditation than he signed his death warrant when he made that decision.

[linusrichard]

We boast about the division of church and state here in the U.S., but we still ask people to swear on the bible prior to their testimony, so we're opening the door. In some states, jurors are also asked to swear on the bible. It isn't restricted to the statements of witnesses, defendants, etc.

My experience is admittedly limited, but I have been in a number of courtrooms and have never seen a Bible used to swear in a witness, a jury or juror, or a venire or venireman. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it definitely doesn't happen universally. Take this with a grain of salt because all of the courtrooms I've been in have been in the same county, so it's by no means a representative sample.

I do believe that in any state, a witness or juror can refuse to swear on a Bible. The court can require him to swear or affirm, but I'm pretty sure they can't require a Bible. They can still ask, though, and to the extent they do, your point is still valid.

[KingMerv00]

I don't understand how that applies in this case. Are you saying that the trial judge was in error to not set aside the sentence because of the outside material in the jury room? I'm not sure that works.

The opening poster wants to overturn the verdict. I was just explaining how that would work at the trial stage and what legal standard is applicable. To be fair, I didn't explain a damn thing so your confusion is understandable.

I SHOULD have said something like:
"After a jury declares a verdict, the judge enters a judgment. Most of the time, the judge simply respects the verdict but in extreme cases, the judge can make a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (a JNOV). The judge may only do so if no reasonable jury could have reached the conclusion that they did."

After reading a bit of the case though, it looks like I was barking up the wrong tree anyway. Seems the defendant was appealing on Constitutional grounds, not because of some other error:

Our inquiry, however, is not complete. We must next determine the effect the Bible had on the jury's decision to impose the death penalty. That is, given that there was a constitutional error because*341 the jury consulted an external influence, we must determine if that constitutional error was harmless. See Garcia v. Quarterman, 454 F.3d 441, 444 (5th Cir.2006) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&serialnum=2009428169&rs=WLW9.04&referencepositiontype=S&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=444&pbc=37DB6406&tc=-1&ordoc=2016757267&findtype=Y&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=LawSchoolPractitioner) ( “If the issue is a mixed question of law and fact, such as the assessment of harmless error, we review the district court's determination de novo.”)...

While the facts before us regarding the jury's use of the Bible are perhaps more egregious than in these previous cases, the procedural posture here constrains our analysis. This is because here, the state court made a factual finding regarding the effect of the Bible on the jury, and we must defer to that factual finding unless Oliver presents “clear and convincing” evidence to the contrary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.04&referencepositiontype=T&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=28USCAS2254&referenceposition=SP%3b06a60000dfdc6&pbc=37DB6406&tc=-1&ordoc=2016757267&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=LawSchoolPractitioner). After hearing the testimony of four jurors at an evidentiary hearing on Oliver's motion for a new trial, the state court ruled that the jurors rendered their decision “in accord with the evidence they heard in this case uninfluenced by any outside influence of any kind shown to the Court in this hearing.” In essence, the state court made a finding that the Bible did not prejudice the jury's decision.

So there you go. His rights were not violated because the court found that the prejudice from the Bible was insufficient.

[KingMerv00]

We boast about the division of church and state here in the U.S., but we still ask people to swear on the bible prior to their testimony, so we're opening the door. In some states, jurors are also asked to swear on the bible. It isn't restricted to the statements of witnesses, defendants, etc.

They can't make you swear on the Bible in court. (Though a fundamentalist may take that as a sign that you are a liar.)

[lionking]

I'm not a member of the growing chorus that wants to eliminate the jury system from this country, but I don't think they should be involved in sentencing.



That's the system in Australia, and in the UK AFAIK. Seems to work quite well.

[linusrichard]

The opening poster wants to overturn the verdict. I was just explaining how that would work at the trial stage and what legal standard is applicable. To be fair, I didn't explain a damn thing so your confusion is understandable.

I SHOULD have said something like:
"After a jury declares a verdict, the judge enters a judgment. Most of the time, the judge simply respects the verdict but in extreme cases, the judge can make a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (a JNOV). The judge may only do so if no reasonable jury could have reached the conclusion that they did."

After reading a bit of the case though, it looks like I was barking up the wrong tree anyway. Seems the defendant was appealing on Constitutional grounds, not because of some other error:
Yes, it was a collateral attack via a habeas claim, not an appeal in the literal sense.

Sidenote: in federal civil procedure, you can only get JNOV if you move for JML before the verdict, and then renew your motion after the verdict. Do you know if it's generally the same in criminal procedure? Could he have even gotten JNOV if he hadn't moved for a directed verdict before the close of trial? And I guess more relevantly, can you even do JNOV for sentencing, or is it only for verdicts?

So there you go. His rights were not violated because the court found that the prejudice from the Bible was insufficient.

Close. His rights were violated, but he has no remedy, because the court found (and he failed to rebut) that the prejudice from the Bible was insufficient.

(I always find harmless error analysis troubling in a criminal case, and especially in a death penalty case.)

[linusrichard]

They can't make you swear on the Bible in court. (Though a fundamentalist may take that as a sign that you are a liar.)

I'm guessing that's why they don't use Bibles in the courtrooms I've been in: so the issue never comes up.

[ponderingturtle]

We boast about the division of church and state here in the U.S., but we still ask people to swear on the bible prior to their testimony, so we're opening the door. In some states, jurors are also asked to swear on the bible. It isn't restricted to the statements of witnesses, defendants, etc.

They can swear on other books or swear in other ways though. THey do not have to swear on a bible.

[ponderingturtle]

They can't make you swear on the Bible in court. (Though a fundamentalist may take that as a sign that you are a liar.)

Or worse, a jew.

[Belz...]

Consulting the Bible for anything is a dumb idea..

Well, sometimes it's useful for showing a bible-thumper how idiotic it is.

[YeahDude]

The opening poster wants to overturn the verdict.



So there you go. His rights were not violated because the court found that the prejudice from the Bible was insufficient.

I would like to correct one small thing. I never stated that I wanted to overturn the VERDICT only the sentence. One of my pet peeves is the death sentence, the idea that we can kill a man without REAL CONCLUSIVE evidence scares me, but this is another discussion. When that sentence is handed out when religion is involved I tend to over-react to the situation.

[diegesis]

Consulting the Bible for anything is a dumb idea..

Consulting the bible to judge believers doesn't sound so dump to me. ;)

[Erigena]

My experience is admittedly limited, but I have been in a number of courtrooms and have never seen a Bible used to swear in a witness, a jury or juror, or a venire or venireman. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it definitely doesn't happen universally. Take this with a grain of salt because all of the courtrooms I've been in have been in the same county, so it's by no means a representative sample.

I do believe that in any state, a witness or juror can refuse to swear on a Bible. The court can require him to swear or affirm, but I'm pretty sure they can't require a Bible. They can still ask, though, and to the extent they do, your point is still valid.
You are correct, this is not universal. It is customary in Delaware to swear on a bible and the juror's oath actually states that in the text. I can't post URL's yet but their ".gov" site has the information. This is also true of North Carolina.

You are also correct in saying that it is not mandatory. Perhaps I didn't accurately demonstrate my point as I did generalize the judicial system. What I meant by my comment was that we have never effectively drawn the line between church and state despite that we advertise as such. God is also present on our currency, but I digress.

[Erigena]

They can't make you swear on the Bible in court. (Though a fundamentalist may take that as a sign that you are a liar.)
Yes, you are correct, they can't make you swear on the bible, but the practice has not yet been abolished from all the courts either.