BF2S Forums Execution for man condemned by 'bible jury'

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Fixed.

Which was done, btw.

Yet somehow, you think because someone read a Bible, it obviates that.

You presume it was FEOS, you can't possibly know for sure ...

In the US, any capital case is mandatorily appealed.

Therefore, this was appealed. The appeal was upheld, to include the sentencing.

I CAN possibly know for sure.

Varegg wrote:

Wasn't discussing the appeal in case you missed that part ...

You can't NOT discuss the appeal. The story in the OP discusses the guy's execution. That means the appeals (plural) are finished and that the original conviction and sentence were upheld. It was the original jury in the original trial that the OP was calling into question.

All of which would have come into play during the appeals process, otherwise AI wouldn't have known about it. Didn't affect the appeal, therefore, not an issue of the law.

Varegg wrote:

we expressed concernes that they resited from the bible in the courtroom and that their faith maybe did influence their duty as objective jurors ...

Obviously their faith influenced their decision. I guess my point would be that that isn't necessarily a problem. As FEOS has already made clear, the case has been gone over several times, and obviously he was guilty. Capitol Punishment is a topic for another thread. The whole point of the American Court system is to make sure that he did receive a fair trial, and, even if the first trial was unfair in someway (which I doubt - It seems to me that any atheist would make the same decision - except for possibly some of the extreme peace types, but then we could get into a whole new issue with "crazy Jurors") the defendant's case was appealed, and the verdict was upheld.

Also, even if the Bible was read, the other Jurors still agreed with him. It's not like he read his Bible and the Other Jurors were like "Kill Him!" Point in case, if some Nut Job came up to me and read Genesis, I don't instantly start believing the world was made in 7 days. It took time and teaching for me to learn that the world was made in seven days, and for me to fully believe. (Joking, lol. But hopefully you get the point I was trying to make)

Also: What would make up a jury of "Normal People"? It seems to me natural that their would be people of all different views and religions on a Jury.

Actually, I would say the opposite. More and more Christian Public Symbols are removed (at least in America - Trees, nativity sets, whatever) but no one would dream of forcing those of another religion to remove their symbols.
I realize this seems a bit off topic, but I mean in general.

Last edited by h4hagen (2009-12-02 06:14:46)

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Wasn't discussing the appeal in case you missed that part ...

You can't NOT discuss the appeal. The story in the OP discusses the guy's execution. That means the appeals (plural) are finished and that the original conviction and sentence were upheld. It was the original jury in the original trial that the OP was calling into question.

All of which would have come into play during the appeals process, otherwise AI wouldn't have known about it. Didn't affect the appeal, therefore, not an issue of the law.

That's good and all that ... but it was the original jury and their resiting and use of the bible we discussed ...

No, it was the OP...which was covered the execution of the man and mentioned the Bible's usage by the jury in his original trial.

I'm just bringing up pesky details people overlooked in their zealotry.

Then how is it not relevant to the discussion?

Is it simply because it nullifies the argument?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Didn't affect the appeal, therefore, not an issue of the law.

Not necessarily, and its Texas law we're talking about so anythings possible.
In most of the rest of the world he would have been retried.

eg - If the jurors consult a dictionary on a legal term instead of going to the Judge its arguable whether a mistrial has occurred.

Dictionaries/reference materials. The Supreme Court of North Carolina has held that “[i]t generally is ground for reversal that the jury obtained and took into the jury room a dictionary which they consulted to determine the meaning of legal or other terms, which they do not understand.

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/ids/Def% … l_CH24.pdf

Bibles. With regard to a jury’s consideration of the Bible during deliberations, the question before the trial court will be whether the Bible falls within the definition of extraneous information under Rule 606(b), and whether it violates the defendant’s constitutional rights. The abuse of discretion standard applies. See State v. Barnes, 345 N.C. 184, 228 (1997) (finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s failure to inquire of the jury regarding defense counsel’s unsubstantiated assertion that the jury consulted a Bible prior to deliberations “[a]s there is no evidence that the alleged Bible reading was in any way directed to the facts or governing law at issue in the case”)

Since in the case here the consultation of the bible DID go to the governing law in the case, as they were looking up an alternative definition of murder, I'd say it was a clear mistrial.
I guess that part of the piece of bark some hillbilly scratched the Texas legal code into got chewed away by weevils or similar.

You are making some pretty broad assumptions that the Bible was used as the source of definition of something when the OP did not state that. If that had been done, it would've been overturned on appeal. Period.

It wasn't overturned.

What do you not understand?

Dilbert_X wrote:

It was in the room and a definition was read out.

That it wasn't overturns just means Texan law is backwards, but we knew that.

You are confusing correlation with causation. Because someone read something out loud in the jury room does not mean that it influenced the jury.

That it wasn't overturned means that it wasn't deemed under either Texas OR US law to be an issue sufficient to overturn either the conviction or sentence on appeal, as the appellate courts are part of the Federal court system, IIRC. Either way, the defendant has the right to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if they so choose and if their case warrants it.

Didn't happen here.

Because either the defendant didn't choose to or the case didn't warrant it. Most likely the latter.

You're making a tempest in a teapot based on one sentence in a short (biased) UK news article that doesn't tell even a fraction of the entire story, jumping to outlandish conclusions based on your own hatred of religion in general and the US specifically. Your article doesn't mention any evidence presented at the trial, any witness deposition, or anything else...it only talks about one juror who said one thing. And it doesn't even mention when that was said, the context, the phase of the trial...anything.

And your sense of "justice" is that that somehow overrides everything else because there was a Bible involved, based on your extensive knowledge of the case gleaned from that superbly researched article?

Right.

Makes perfect sense.