I'm not seeing any problem with the sentence given out here. Bible or no Bible.

I wonder how much of the Bible they follow as literally as this one passage. Odd that it was in the jury room with that passage highlighted.

I don't care how they got there. I still favored the end result.

"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."

Do iron alloys count as iron? We need forensics to analyze the composition of the murder weapon.

Also, if you smite with an instrument made of, say, tungsten, are you off the hook?

Well, considering the crime -- I'm not really that upset about the result.

Is the decision lawful? Yes.

Does any law say that the jurors cannot consult the bible or any other religious text? No.

Does the conclusion and the sentence fit the same or similar sentences as similar cases? Yes.

Then this isn't an issue. The jurors could just have easily remembered the verses from their heads. I hate the death penalty, but I don't see this as an abrogation of the law.

smite him with irony for all i care, so long as the end result is the same.

I think you need to recheck on your laws then.

Granted, that was the supreme court of another state, but it's still in the US constitution that state has no business mixing with religion.

Since criminal trials are a matter of the state, either no religious texts should used in the process or all of them. Since all of them is pretty hard (or even impossible) to accomplish, none should be used.

And if that doesn't convince you, ask yourself this question: "How would I feel if I had a shariah based legislature/trial process?"

Looks like plime has a constitutional lawyer

I'm not sure if you're serious about this, simply kidding around or mocking me, so I'll interpret this as a mixture of the first 2 ;)

I'm not a constitutional lawyer. But separation of church and state is a very big deal in the US (removing the 10 commandments from a court house, [..., school prayer).

And, as I mentioned before: what would the result have been if the jurors had found Quran passages or texts from the Torah in the deliberation room?

I can definitely see both sides of this. On the one hand, it's kind of pointless, because whether Christians are consulting a bible that they hold physically in their hand, or the bible verses and lessons they've memorized, the bible is getting consulted. No two ways about it.

On the other hand, it was a stupid decision to use them in the jury room, for three reasons: it creates an awkward situation for a juror who is not Christian, it creates a legal loophole for the bad guy and his lawyers to exploit, and I don't feel that a defendant should have his guilt or his punishment judged by a religious text which he may not even believe in. It wouldn't be right in a smaller trial, it doesn't get more right just because the crime was more heinous.

What if there's a religion out there that says it's ok to rob and murder people in their homes?

What if five or six of the jurors were of that particular religion?

What if the principals of that particular religion varied or contradicted the current laws of Texas/USA?

Would/should it be declared a mis-trial if the jurors had said "not guilty" after consulting their religious texts?

The fact that we all feel he should be put to death anyway is beside the point.

IMO, I think the verdict is over the top. I'm sure the crime wasn't premeditated. I'm sure he didn't go into the home just to murder the guy - just to rob him, but when the home owner "defended himself" with a rifle, it turned into a struggle which ended in the home owner being shot. I'm pretty sure that 2nd degree murder isn't punishable by the death penalty is it?

How long does it take to find and ignore "Thou shalt not kill"?

Did you read any of the old testament?

"Thout shalt not kill" should really be "Thout shalt not kill*"

And another thing - thank GOD that these jurors aren't part of a family divorce court jury...

Well, since Constitutional Law is something that I study and plan to practice when I graduate, I did know about this. However, many state courts make decision incorrectly and are subject to being overturned. Plus, state courts are only supposed to rule on State Constitutions, not the U.S. Constitution. If the State Supreme Court did rule on the U.S. Constitution, it must be immediately be appealed to the SCOTUS, which it was not. Therefore, this case cannot be applied to another state. (EDIT: This is why the State Supreme Court of California had to uphold Prop 8, but the federal appeals court can overturn it).

Oh, and the conviction was upheld anyway. His sentence was just reduced to life in prison with no parole.

Either way, if the punishment fits the crime according to the law, if the punishment is similar to other cases, and if the jurors made the decision based on the facts and law and not solely on the religious text, then this decisions should be upheld. I hate the death penalty, but this is not a violation of the law.

Well that religion would be in a direct violation of the law. In this case, sending a murderer to death row upholds Texas Law and it also fits in with the Bible.

The jurors do not decide the penalty. The jurors decide guilt. That is why this matters very little. The judge sentences the guilty party, based on the recommendations of guilt sent by the jury. Apparently not in Texas.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals examines every single death penalty case in the state. For a guy to be sentenced to death row, his case must be examined by the court for trial error. Trial error must not have happened for the guy to be going to the chair.

So long as the decision is a legal decision based on the facts, consultation of a religious text does not matter. The law was upheld in this case.

I still hate the decision.

In most states they would try to maintain that the jury, particularly on a capital crime, be isolated from any input or opinion that was not directly introduced as evidence in the courtroom.

No television, newspapers or any other biased material is/should be allowed.

Bibles with select passages highlighted that deal with religiously biased statements concerning biblical punishments are outrageously inappropriate.

Amazing he wasn't burned at the stake.

I think there are quite a few states where that appeal would and should have been upheld. You cannot exclude the possibility that those inappropraite bibles swayed their guilty verdict.

disgusting, bible is the best book. ohh my goood :(

The article says "several copies had been in the jury room" - but it doesn't say how they got there. If the court countenances religious material as "standard equipment" in the jury room, then the establishment clause should be invoked. If the jurors brought the material into court lawfully on their own, while I wouldn't want my fate decided that way, I have to agree with Josh that there was no foul here under current law (did I just agree with Josh? !)

Yes, but it's not him, it's Josh :)