One of the jurors later confirmed that reference to scripture played a part in his deliberation. In his view, “the Bible is the truth from page one to the last page”.
How many peremptories does it take to keep true believers off a death qualified jury in Texas? Don’t bother answering. It rhetorical. But then, how many Bibles must there be in a jury room to aid in the deliberations. In Khristian Oliver’s case, the number is four.
One of the jurors testified that about 4 Bibles were in the jury room. Key passages were highlighted and handed around among fellow believers. At one point, a juror reportedly read aloud from a copy, including the passage: “And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.”
That would be Numbers, 35:16.
The fiction that jurors decide the fate of defendants based upon the law is one that we hold dear, otherwise exposing a fatal flaw in the system. But we do acknowledge, indeed expect, that they bring into the jury room their experience in life. This is what the judge tells them to apply in their deliberations, their decision about a fellow human being. Life experience includes one’s religious belief. No Mullah could ask more of the most militant terrorist. But this, naturally, is entirely different, because this is us and it’s a Bible.
The 5th Circuit wasn’t pleased with the way this death sentence was meted out.
The fiction that jurors decide the fate of defendants based upon the law is one that we hold dear, otherwise exposing a fatal flaw in the system. But we do acknowledge, indeed expect, that they bring into the jury room their experience in life. This is what the judge tells them to apply in their deliberations, their decision about a fellow human being. Life experience includes one’s religious belief. No Mullah could ask more of the most militant terrorist. But this, naturally, is entirely different, because this is us and it’s a Bible.
The 5th Circuit wasn’t pleased with the way this death sentence was meted out.
In 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the jurors had “crossed an important line” by consulting specific passages in the Bible that described the very facts at issue in the case. This amounted to an “external influence” on the jury prohibited under the US Constitution.
On the other hand, they weren’t sufficiently displeased to do something about it.
Was it wrong to impose a sentence of death on Khristian Oliver, the irony of his name notwithstanding? If it’s because the jury was influenced by the sentence that a religion would have them impose rather than consideration of the criteria that the law demanded, then yes. But was he prejudiced?
It doesn’t matter now. Khristian Oliver was executed on November 5.
However, it concluded that under the “highly deferential standard” by which federal courts should review state court decisions, Oliver had failed to prove that he had been prejudiced by this unconstitutional juror conduct. In April 2009, the US Supreme Court refused to take the case, despite being urged to take it by nearly 50 former US federal and state prosecutors.Not prejudiced? Of course not. They jury merely applied their own life experiences in reaching the decision to execute Oliver. The murderer shall surely be put to death. The Bible says so. Surely, you wouldn’t argue that jurors who believe that the Bible is the word of God, the Truth, are wrong. Aren’t they allowed to believe? Of course they are. This is America, and Americans are allowed to believe what they want, even that the Bible is the literal Word. And if the Bible commands the he be put to death, then death is shall be. That’s all we ask of a jury.
Was it wrong to impose a sentence of death on Khristian Oliver, the irony of his name notwithstanding? If it’s because the jury was influenced by the sentence that a religion would have them impose rather than consideration of the criteria that the law demanded, then yes. But was he prejudiced?
It doesn’t matter now. Khristian Oliver was executed on November 5.
H/T CharonQC
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just to clarify. Other sites have, by seeing the single verse out of context, speculated that the jurors must have decided the case based on the type of weapon used. The jurors could not have done so if they had faithfully applied the scripture. Here is the scripture, with more context:
“If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.
Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.
Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.
The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death.
If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer.
The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations.”
In context, it appears that the scripture would have urged the jury not to make a distinction based how the murder was committed. Rather the jury should have made a distinction based on whether there was “malice aforethought.”
Reading a few verses down, the jury would have found:
“Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.”
So what we have here are the requirements of malice aforethought and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Both are ancient and respected standards, which the jury was already under a duty to apply.
However, the Bible does not specify that a jury must find anything more in order to impose a sentence of death. The Bible does not appear to allow for a finding of a sentence other than death if premeditated murder is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
So you raise a bit of a problem. Since the jury is left to its own devices, to read and considering the meaning of its Bible passages, and they are under no burden in the privacy of their jury room to read the whole Bible, or the entirety of a passage, and under no burden to correctly understand its point, assuming it has one, then what?
In other words, your point is well taken, but irrelevant. It’s not what the jurors point to as the passage they relied upon, and there’s no appeal based on the jury only reading a portion of a passage, or misunderstanding its meaning.
It wouldn’t matter if you kept the Bible out of the jury room. Folks who believe strongly that way can quote chapter and verse, though it should be said that VERY few Christians emphasize the “two or three witnesses” requirement as strongly as the “eye for an eye” stuff, and for Christians, the New Testament retains the former and rejects the latter.
It is also a little known fact of the Bible, that prisons or jails are never recommended by God for punishments.
Bring THAT into the sentencing phase, and see what happens.
It is true that confinement was never one of the judgements, but restitution always was.