Texas man faces execution after jurors consult Bible to decide fate

• The passage referenced is from the Old Testament, which, while it is referenced as a basis for understanding the New Testament, is more the basis of Judaic, not just Christian faiths.
  
  
• The article states that:

  
  Four jury members admitted that several copies had been in the jury room and that highlighted passages were passed around.

  Source: www.telegraph.co.uk...
  
  A jury is comprised of 12 people. As I understand it, a capital sentence must be delivered by a unanimous vote of those 12, not by a simple majority. So, if 4, or even 11 people decided to base their decision on a Biblical passage, the remaining would have had to be convinced of guilt through more accepted means.
  
  
• The article further states:

  
  The US constitution calls for the separation of state and religion.

  Source: www.telegraph.co.uk...
  
  This is not exactly true. The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the US Constitution. The reference is to the beginning of Amendment 1:

  
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

  Source: www.usconstitution.net...
  
  This has been interpreted by a large portion of society to mean "separation of church and state", but those are not the actual words. I, as well as others, believe the wording to mean something slightly different: separation of church from state.
  
  
• There are no specific requirements in the US Constitution to address who can be a juror, what they can believe, or how they may come to a decision. this could be argued to be a problem, but at this time it is not addressed. This means that, legally at least, a juror may make a decision in whatever manner or based on whatever belief they wish.
  
  
• The case itself sounded open and shut. After 5 pages of Google results, I have found nothing, not even the slightest hint of any problem in the trial itself, save for the fact that some jurors may have read from a Bible while deliberating. I did, however, find this:

  
  Summary of incident
  
  On 03/17/98, Oliver and three juvenile co-defendants were in the process of burglarizing the residence of a 64-year old white male. Oliver and the co-defendants were in the house and Reed was in the vehicle. The victim surprised Oliver and Oliver shot the victim in the face with a 380-caliber handgun. The victim was beaten around the head with the butt of a rifle. Oliver and the co-defendants fled the scene. They were arrested in a motel in Waco, Texas.

  Source: www.tdcj.state.tx.us...
  
  Since no hint of improper prosecution has been offered, I must accept that Khristian Oliver is indeed guilty of shooting a homeowner in the face with a gun, while actively robbing the man's home. Here in Alabama, that is an offense that can carry the death penalty, since it is premeditated (he had a loaded gun and was apparently prepared to use it without provocation) and committed while in the act of committing another felony (burglary). I can only assume from this story that Texas has similar laws. Therefore, the conviction was appropriate and the sentence was within the limits of the law.
  
  
• I am a bit taken aback by the fact that the referenced source in this case, which is an American legal issue, is a British news source. Of course it is still valid, I just find it unusual that domestic sources were not used...

TheRedneck

reply to post by budski

Oh, there are domestic mentions of the incident... plenty of them. granted, most are more blogs than news, but it doesn't sound as though any part of the guilt vs. innocence of Mr. Oliver is ever questioned; he did it.

Most of the stories concern not his guilt or innocence, but whether a murderer should be set free because a juror used a Bible.

In any case, I accept the facts presented by the source. Truth can come form any source, and only a fool tosses out information without vetting it without regard to source.

I should mention that had I been one of the jurors deliberating, I would have ignored any legal arguments from other jurors that were based on the Bible, and probably would have admonished them for making such arguments. My decision would have been made based on my own beliefs and the evidence as to whether or not he did it, whether or not there were mitigating circumstances, and whether or not I believed he deserved the same fate as his victim (death). I'm sure you know what I would have decided; I just would not have needed a Biblical passage to decide it.

TheRedneck

reply to post by OldDragger

These are not technicalites folks, these are the basic principles of justice.

I understand your point. It is well-taken.

But in legal situations failure to adhere to proper procedures is only applicable when there is a reasonable suspicion that such failure would have affected the outcome. That's not to simply say that the end justifies the means; it certainly does not! But in this case there is nothing to indicate that the removal of Bibles in the deliberation room would have made any difference at all. So, which would be more appropriate: to release a convicted murderer, denying closure to his surviving family and possibly allowing him to commit the same act again, or admonishing the jurors and perhaps placing a ruling into effect to forbid future Biblical reading in deliberations?

I would say the latter. Justice is not served in the former.

TheRedneck