I think its imcumbant upon his lawyers and the judge to ferret out people who cannot play by the rules. If everyone involved found these people acceptable then they can lay in the bed they made.

__________________
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

The appellate court has already investigated the incident, and found that Bible usage did not prejudice the jury’s decision, and the USSC has refused to hear the case, so there will be no mistrial or appeal. The verdict will stand.

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

kinda like how the words "gay" and "computer" mean the same thing that they did 100 years ago.

first of all i'd be curious to know what these original documents are or who wrote them. i was unaware anyone knew of any original documents.

second of all, you're sure that they reference "murder of innocents" and not killing in general and you know this because some hypothetical linguistic expert translated a translation of a translation and was able to discern, with 100% accuracy, whether the "original" bible (whatever that means) used the specific word for "murder" and not the general form of the word "kill" from an all but extinct language that has undergone drastic changes from the time of christ?

really? you're sure about that?

edit: it just occurred to me that you probably really are 100% sure of that which makes arguing with you completely pointless. however i do feel somewhat satisfied knowing that maybe somewhere out there someone with the ability to think critically has been reading this.

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

Legally, you're probably correct, but this juror has unwittingly given the plaintiff/scumbag a weapon for appeal. He can now argue that counsel was inadequate to the task of selecting an unbiased jury, and he is entitled to a retrial. He'll probably get ACLU backing on that too, meaning an extremely competent litigator. All in all, a loss for law and order because a hyper-religious juror couldn't shut his yap about the bible for five minutes. There would be less trouble if they just declared it a mistrial and retried him with a fresh jury and a competent lawyer on his side.

EDIT: Didn't see your post, CYDdharta. Thanks for allaying my fears.

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

actually something else occurred to me...how do you even know that the man who the convict killed was innocent in the eyes of god? maybe he was an adulterer, or a faggot, or maybe he ate shellfish on a tuesday.

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

the other guy was not on trial and as you seem to have forgotten, you originated this little diversion by attempting to use a biblical quote as a gotcha.

best stick to cut-n-pastes from MoveOn.

__________________
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

That is not what happened, if I remember correctly from the article. The evidence was used to reach a guilty verdict. The Bible was present in the deliberation room as the jury deliberated on sentencing.

Again, if the Bible, and all that it embodies, is useful to be used for confirmation of witnesses' oaths to tell the truth in court, how can that same Bible, and all that it embodies, not be useful for a juror's sentencing deliberations in that same court?

Question.... can a Muslim, who takes the stand, be sworn in using the Holy Quran? If so, I'm guessing that people also wouldn't have a problem with that being used for convicting or sentencing anyone, right?

__________________
"It's no exaggeration to say that the undecideds could go one way or another." - George W. Bush

The bottom line is the jurors violated the judge's instructions.
I think the 5th Circuit ruled correctly. The Constitution promises a trial by a jury of peers, and that's what he got. 12 people selected as a representative sample of those from his area.

I agree that the guy, judging from the information available to us, has correctly been found guilty.

What I´m concerned about is on a totally idealistic level. Every juror brings his or her moral convictions and standings with him into the courtroom, no denying that. In fact, that´s the whole premise of a trial by a jury of peers.

However, the question of guilt should be based solely on the law, not whether or not someone didn´t follow any of the commandments. If you begin taking religion into the equation, you invalidate the courts and make them open to attacks of not being fair and legit.

The road to Sharia started in a small way.... I´m not saying we´re gonna end up with religious courts, but this example alone is a slippery slope in itself.

__________________
"It's no exaggeration to say that the undecideds could go one way or another." - George W. Bush

It seems to me that it doesn't really matter how the jurors made the decision to administer the death penalty since it is an option available to them based on the law in Texas. The person was found guilty of muder and the penalty he faced was death or life in prison I assume. So the jurors exercised their option of choosing death. Maybe some of them didn't want the responsibility for taking this defendant's life so they used God as the scapegoat. I personally object to the use of the Bible and the motto, "In God We Trust" in the courtroom. It is silly to be up in arms over its use in the deliberating room when it is acceptable to use it or the name of God for swearing in witnesses before they testify.