Death sentence overturned ... jury consulted Bible

[mwm1331]

BTW I'm not being an asshole here but I really dont understand it.
Had this been a situation where the jury would have come to a different sentance, or where it could be proven that a reasonable jury not consulting the bible would have then yes it would make sense to me.
But if a jury not using the bible would have or could be expected to come to the same conclusion then why does it matter from a legal standpoint?

[mwm1331]

But the result is the same.
The same sentane would have been reached based on only interperting US law.

If legal procedures have been violated in a case, the verdict is overturned. That is a basic principle of western law.

I thought that only applied to the prosecution?

[Gil Hamilton]

But the result is the same.
The same sentane would have been reached based on only interperting US law.

Under that logic, due process is irrelevant. Doing a criminal investigation, then obtaining a warrant for arrest and the police kicking down a guys door then dragging a guy in the moment he becomes a suspect are the same because the end result, the suspect being arrested, is the same. I'm sure you can see the problem with that logic. No one ever says "Who cares if they completely dicked over due process and the rule of law, they arrested the clear suspect so who cares how they did it?"* The rules are very important to how a criminal case - at any part of the criminal case - is done and trying to correct legal fuck-ups (even if they lead to less than ideal results) is the best way to prevent some really bad precidents from piling up.



[size=x-small]... well, OK, some people say that, but they tend to be morons.[/size]

[Lord Zentei]

BTW I'm not being an asshole here but I really dont understand it.
Had this been a situation where the jury would have come to a different sentance, or where it could be proven that a reasonable jury not consulting the bible would have then yes it would make sense to me.
But if a jury not using the bible would have or could be expected to come to the same conclusion then why does it matter from a legal standpoint?

Yes, it matters a lot. You cannot always be certain that they would have come to the same conclusion. Nor can you play favourites. If the powers that be screw up, they must acknowledge this and may not stand by the conclusion arrived at by fraudulent or erronous means.

[The Spartan]

But the result is the same.
The same sentane would have been reached based on only interperting US law.

If legal procedures have been violated in a case, the verdict is overturned. That is a basic principle of western law.

I thought that only applied to the prosecution?

That's assinine. Why the hell would the fucking law only apply to the prosecution? That doesn't make any fucking sense.

[mwm1331]

Right but like I said I wasn't aware that that also applied to the jury.
I was under the impression that a jury could use any rationale they wanted as long as the decision they reached was legally defensible, I wasn't aware thier reasons for reaching that decision came into play.

[Lord Zentei]

Right but like I said I wasn't aware that that also applied to the jury.
I was under the impression that a jury could use any rationale they wanted as long as the decision they reached was legally defensible, I wasn't aware thier reasons for reaching that decision came into play.

The jury works for the powers that be. If the principle I stated only applies to the powes that be but not the people that work for them, you effectively have no principle.

[The Spartan]

Right but like I said I wasn't aware that that also applied to the jury.
I was under the impression that a jury could use any rationale they wanted as long as the decision they reached was legally defensible, I wasn't aware thier reasons for reaching that decision came into play.

No, the rules surrounding the jury are very stringent. As I recall, they're not allowed to talk to anyone about the case. They're not even allowed to discuss it outside the jury room amongst themselves. Once(if) they're sequestered they're not allowed to go anywhere without the supervision of the bailiffs and have no outside contact at all.

[mwm1331]

Ok
learn something new everyday.

[tharkûn]

The law of the United States of America is secular. If they used, considered, or consulted religious doctrine then that does invalidate it. For that matter, if they had consulted anything but the law and evidence in considering the sentence then they invalidated it.

Unfortunately religious doctrine is routinely used, considered, and consulted by judges. As far as consulting anything outside of the law, hell the jury had a fine example when the supremes overturned the death penalty for "minors". I really think this aught to be an all or nothing rule; either the judiciary can consult matter outside of law and precedent or it cannot.