That's unconstitutional.

You might as well say one cant make a decision based on ones personal morals or ethics and THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT RELIGION IS.

What is a judge going to do next? manufacture an outcome via jury instructions?

Call a mistrial fine, call for a sentencing appeal, whatever, but these people are with in their LEGAL rights to use the Bible.

Are "unpolitically correct" ethics deemed as outside influences too?

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

To only make matters worse the judge could easily trump the Jury's sentencing recommendation by issuing a JNOV.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

No one is saying jurors can't rely on their moral convictions or that they can't use things they've learned from the Bible to help them make a judgment. The problem is actually, physically having Bibles in the deliberation room. That isn't allowed.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Sounds like the guy was guilty and would have been sentence to death under Texas law. However, the Bible,Koran or any other relegious text does not belong in the jury room. If I had been on that jury I would have raised objections to passing aroung scripture, which makes me wonder if the jury wasn't made up of "evangelical Christians" , which I would think the defense attorney could have objected too. I know nothing about this particular case, but Texas certainly has a history of appointing very weak and sometimes inneffectual counsel to capital defendants.

BTW, the Old Testament passes out the death penalties for many offenses from homosexuality to working on the Sabbath, I doubt anyone who has actually read the Old Testament would want to be under that law. I think any decent attorney could make an argument based on that on appeal.

However, the guy's probably a gonner and most likely deserves it.

To me the issue here is respect for the law.

That's unconstitutional, that's DENYING a persons RIGHT to a Bible and that's against the First Amendment.

Ruling that the Bible is an outside influence is frivolous.

This is the whole reason for jury selection too, to get rid of bias.

I'm not taking any sides here, this is a gray issue that doesn't have a legal standard BUT it does have plenty of legal solutions. The fact of the matter remains the same NO ONE here broke the law.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

Nobody has a right to the Bible in any given situation, that is absolutely ridiculous and shows that you once again have no clue about what you're speaking of.
It is unconstitutional. If that is 'frivolous' to you, then yikes is all I can really say.
What?! I just linked you to a number of legal standards establishing that bibles cannot be used as source material during deliberations:

Use of Religious Source Material

Yikes.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

*begins beating Speakeasy in the head with a 2X4*


Enough already!

__________________
"You know you were way too high when you wake up next to a handwritten list of all the things you would do for a Klondike bar." - Unknown

"What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will be pretty bad." - Dave Barry

haha i love how you always say something like "you didn't understand what i said" in response to statements you don't like.

it sounded to me like you were telling me what your interpretation of the bible was when you told me what "kill" meant in the phrase "thou shalt not kill"

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

there is no interpretation, there is just understanding of language.

you know, like what the meaning of "is": is.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Thanks for the morning laugh!

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

Sorry, Speak; that's not what the court said. Bibles are allowed to be in the deliberation room so long as they aren’t provided by the state, and they’re used solely for their owner’s personal edification and inspiration. In this instance, one of the jurors highlighted their bible , and it was passed around, so it was considered to be an "external influence"; however, the state court found that the Bible did not influence the jury’s decision.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov:8081/isy.../irlc986/1/doc

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

I linked to a number of trials where the mere presence of a Bible in the deliberation room was forbiddin, though.

Use of Religious Source Material

These are capital cases that were nullified due to a Bible being present. Jurors are supposed to make their decisions based only on the information provided to them by the court, not the Bible.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

so if you would help me understand the language that would be fantastic. as i understand it, what you're telling me is that in the king james version of the bible, when i see the word "kill," it doesn't really mean "kill," but instead it means "kill an innocent person."

is that not what you're saying? if it's not what you're saying, could you help me to understand what it is that you're actually saying?

also, do you think jesus would support the death penalty?

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

Your source appears to be misleadingly biased. It hardly appears to be settled law. Rules and condition apparently change from one court to the next, or at least from one circuit to the next. Understandably so, as that would be a great excuse for getting out of jury duty. “Your honor, I demand my First amendment right to a Bible.” “You’re excused.”

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

They did not speak "King James" back in those days. But where you see kill the original meant murder.

Did Jesus spare the theives put to death with Him ? Surely He could have but even one of the thieves said that they deserved it but that Jseus had done nothing wrong.

Yes, its obvious Jesus was OK with Capital Punishment.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand