Bible Consultation May Invalidate Death Sentence
The Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in Robert Harlan's death penalty appeal, stemming from the 1994 rape and murder of casino cocktail waitress Rhonda Maloney. Although the jury voted for death, the trial court later threw out the death penalty when the defense learned that five jurors had consulted the Bible during deliberations:
Defense attorneys challenged the sentence after discovering five jurors had looked up Bible verses, copied some of them down and then talked about them behind closed doors.
Among the verses that were looked up: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." At Tuesday's hearing, at least one justice was critical of the prosecution's argument that jurors did nothing wrong:
"Don't we have a duty to make sure the death penalty isn't imposed under religious passion or prejudice?" Justice Gregory Hobbs asked. Hobbs also asked whether the verses the jurors referred to were part of Colorado law. "Passion and prejudice is not, but morality is," [D.A. Steven ]Bernard responded.
Morality isn't the issue. Nor is religion. Colorado law is clear that jurors cannot bring any outside materials into the jury room during deliberations. Period. This was a particularly heinous crime.
Harlan was convicted in 1995 of kidnapping casino worker Rhonda Maloney and raping her at gunpoint for two hours before killing her. Maloney was shot to death after almost escaping. She slipped away from Harlan and flagged down Jaquie Creazzo, a passing motorist on Interstate 70. Creazzo was taking Maloney to the Thornton Police Department when the pursuing gunman fired at her vehicle, hitting her in the back.
If the justuces rule in Harlan's favor, he will not go free. Ever. His sentence will be life without the possibility of parole. Aren't we all better served if the death penalty goes and the rule of law stays? The case is now "under advisement" while the Justices formulate their opinion.
Comments
Submitted by Alz_Western_Genocide (not verified) on Fri, 2005-04-08 16:16.
The law is being used as a WMD. It's being used to generate terror in good citizens. This twisting and perversion of law is a definite conspiracy against genuine and established Western Society. Perhaps, and importantly, if Maloney was not white then more could have been expected regarding the death panalty for Harlan.
Expect more of these judgement(?) while YOU as a free citizen in the West sit on your hands and do nothing about it.
Submitted by Hyde808 (not verified) on Tue, 2005-03-29 00:48.
In response to Ms. Merrit's bleeding heart post:
"Robert Harlan -- (jury sentenced - not affected by Ring decision)
In 1994, Harlan kidnapped, raped, sodomized, tortured, and murdered Rhonda Maloney (25), a cocktail waitress. One night when she was travelling home from work, Ms. Maloney's car broke down in a snowstorm. Harlan stopped and raped her. She escaped and flagged down a passing motorist, Jaquie Creazzo (32). Ms. Creazzo tried driving Ms. Maloney to safety. Harlan chased the two women down the interstate, firing repeatedly into Ms. Creazzo's car. The chase ended on the lawn of the Thornton Police Department when Ms. Creazzo could no longer keep driving after having been hit by several of Harlan's bullets. Harlan re-kidnapped Ms. Maloney, beat her savagely, murdered her, and dumped her body under a bridge. Ms. Creazzo survived permanently paralyzed. Harlan told an ex-wife that he would drive around at night looking for women who were by themselves, and that he would think of ways he could rape and murder them and get away with it. He had sexually assaulted or sexually abused a number of women friends and coworkers."
The above description of the event is from a press release of the attorney general's office of the State of Colorado. It is a bit more savage than Ms Merritt's description of Harlan firing into the car and hitting Maloney in the back.
"Aren't we all better off served if the death penalty goes...?"
I don't think so.
Submitted by mattH (not verified) on Fri, 2005-02-04 11:12.
The real irony is the lack of historical knowledge these people exhibit. The Old Testament admonition of "an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth" was actually a restriction on retribution which had gotten out of hand. Compared to the rather dipropportionate and excessive consequences of violating laws under Code of Hammurabi, this part of the Old Testament is actually arguing for compassion and restraint. Context is everything.
