I wanted to bring to your attention a case that probably won’t get much play in the blogosphere. Everybody’s too busy blogging about General David Petraeus’s testimony before Congress, a fake Fred Thompson site linked to Mitt Romney, and other topics I’m thoroughly not interested in.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (9th Circuit) upheld a death sentence for Stevie Lamar Fields, a thug who robbed, raped, and murdered. He claimed, among other things, that because a juror quoted Bible passages mentioning capital punishment during sentencing deliberations, he prejudiced the jury, thereby violating Field’s constitutional rights, etc.

The 9th Circuit disagreed. The notoriously liberal 9th Circuit. (Source)

(Pictured: The MacArthur Study Bible, my main Bible.)

First, a little background. Fields appealed his state conviction on several grounds, including juror bias. For example, a juror’s (Hilliard) wife had been raped by a man who was never caught and one she suspected was Fields. The defendant claimed Hilliard had been dishonest during voir dire about his wife’s rape, was biased, etc. I won’t get into all that, because this post would end up 5,000 words long. It’s all in the 99-page opinion (PDF). Knock yourselves out.

The district court upheld the conviction but threw out the death sentence and ordered that Fields get life in prison with no possibility of parole. Both Fields and the state appealed this ruling, and the case ended up in the 9th Circuit. A three-judge panel affirmed but sent the juror bias issue back to the lower court for an evidentiary hearing. The district court ruled that Hilliard had not been dishonest or biased. Fields appealed again to the 9th Circuit, which held that Hilliard was a fair and impartial juror.

(Hope I got all the procedural stuff right. Law students, let me know!)

Now, the religious issue. One of the defendant’s other claims was that the use of Bible references during penalty phase deliberations was “highly prejudicial.”

A jury deliberates on testimony and other evidence presented at trial only. That’s why judges ask jurors not to discuss the case with anyone other than fellow jurors and not to read news about the trial. It’s also why only certain facts (or evidence) are admissible in court and available to a jury. The defendant has a right to a fair and impartial trial. Additionally, certain evidence may be relevant, but if it’s “unfairly prejudicial” to the defendant, it’s excluded.

The district court upheld Field’s conviction but found that the jury’s consideration of Bible references “offended the principle that religion may not play a role in the sentencing process, and that it had the potential to be highly prejudicial.” The court ordered that his death sentence be vacated and that he receive life in prison.

The 9th Circuit disagreed. The juror’s Bible quotes and notes were not of an “improper influence” but a “mix of ideas “for” and “against” capital punishment. Both the Biblical verses and the other concepts contained in the notes are notions of general currency that inform the moral judgment that capital-case jurors are called upon to make…In effect he marshaled general, commonly known points in favor of the death penalty…’eye for eye,’ ‘deterrence,’ ‘fitting punishment to crime,’ ‘rights of victim.’”

Off to the gas chamber!

As a Bible-believing Christian, I’m biased. I believe there is only one true God, and that God is revealed through the Old and New Testaments. I believe Christianity has played a significant role in the building of Western Civilization and is crucial to its continuing existence. And everything from the founding of our great country to its principles of government to the judicial system and beyond, would not have been possible but for Christianity — specifically, “western” Christianity.

My faith guides my life. If I were on a jury, I’d try my best to pay attention to testimony and physical evidence and to follow the judge’s instructions. But I’m not an automaton. My faith will manifest itself, and I likely would pray about the deliberations as well as draw upon my knowledge of the Bible and my faith.

If I were a jury foreman, however, I doubt I’d quote directly from the Bible, but the Bible’s tenets would play a part in my decision. I’d expect no less from people of other faiths. For instance, followers of Allah would draw from their faith. I don’t like it, but what I think about it really doesn’t matter. A Muslim jury foreman quoting from the Koran is a different story. That would bother me greatly, and I’d have to speak up.

Well, just wanted to put those ideas out there. Something to think about. Have a cool Tuesday.