Reading the Bible in court
Jimmie Urbano Lucero was already considered guilty of murdering three of his neighbors when the jury foreman opened up Romans 13: 1-6 and read it to the members of the jury, the Christian Science Monitor reports.
Then the jury voted 12-0 to issue Lucero the death penalty.
Lucero’s lawyers appealed the decision based on the Bible reading at the close of the case, saying it harmed his defense and had no evidential bearing on the case.
The Supreme Court declined to review the case, so the Texas court’s decision stands.
Bible reading in the courtroom has been hotly contested between states, according to the article.
Courts in both the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, and the 11th Circuit in Atlanta have ruled that the introduction of a Bible into jury deliberations violates the right to an impartial jury, the right to confrontation, and the right to a fair trial. But courts in the Fourth Circuit in Richmond and the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco have ruled that the presentation of specific Bible verses during jury deliberations does not violate the Sixth Amendment because the Bible’s teachings are a matter of common knowledge in American culture.
An official with the state attorney general said afterward the content of the verse was what mattered, simply calling jurists to fulfill their civic duty. Here’s part of the version the juror read aloud:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established…. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
Do you think it was fair to read right before the jury voted?




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top36 Comments to “Reading the Bible in court”
No!
Report comment to moderator
The defendant should count his blessings it wasnt a Quran verse.
Report comment to moderator
If the prosecutor wanted the jurors to fulfill their civic duty, the legal instructions from the judge would be enough.
It’s a blatant attempt to appeal to the presumed religious beliefs of the jury to secure a harsher punishment. The sentence should be overturned. Possibly the conviction should be overturned. And the prosecutor should be disbarred.
The whole country has gone insane.
Report comment to moderator
#3
Why should the prosecutor be disbarred? Unless he was in the jury room when the foreman read the verses.
At least in this case, part of the country hasn’t lost its senses yet. Thank God for Texas!
Report comment to moderator
Oh, my mistake, I misread. I thought the prosecutor did the reading.
In that light, then I retract my comment. I still think it wasn’t proper and it’s possible the sentence should be overturned, but it’s not prosecutorial misconduct.
Report comment to moderator
#4: My mistake. I originally posted that it was the prosecuter, but it was the jury foreman.
Report comment to moderator
Momof5, speaking as a displaced Texan here in Louisiana let me say this: we have a HUGE plaque of the 10 commandments displayed quite prominently on the campus of the state legislature. The only monuments bigger than that are the ones to soldiers from the Lone Star State who fought for the CSA.
Report comment to moderator
Wow! The 9th Circus court in SF came out with a proBible holding? Will wonders never cease!?
Report comment to moderator
I’m having trouble believing that they went for the death penalty 12-0 after hearing the foreman read a few verses from Romans, if they weren’t open to choosing such a punishment before. Hanging around WMB for a few hours would disabuse anyone of the notion that merely quoting the Bible would bring all commenters around.
Assuming they were already open to the idea (much more likely, in my view) then isn’t the idea of jury deliberations to deliberate? Why is the foreman prevented from making his case from the Bible, in the absence of any evidence that another juror was prevented from making his own case from some other text?
Report comment to moderator
#9
Yes. Furthermore, the idea that a man already found guilty of a TRIPLE murder should go free (isn’t that what happens when a sentence is overturned?) because someone COMPELLED by the state to serve on a jury reads a few verses is RIDICULOUS!
Way to protect the violent criminal and punish the average citizen for showing up to do his duty. Now THAT’S insane.
Report comment to moderator
RR: Because legal decisions are supposed to be based on the law, period. Not your holy book. Not somebody else’s holy book. Just the law.
The heinousness of this crime is probably what persuaded the jury to the death sentence, and I don’t especially disagree with it. But even so, the jurors should make the decision because of what the law is regarding the crime, not because the foreman sees fit to instruct them that, in his view at least, God requires it of them.
Report comment to moderator
MomOf5: Overturning the sentence would only mean sending it back to the court for a new sentence. Which would probably come out the same way, but it should based on the law and not on someone’s religious sentiments.
Report comment to moderator
It was not fair, but courts unfortunately can’t provide perfect fairness and consistency. The greater unfairness is the exclusion of jurors who think the death penalty is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
It was fair, but not smart. The foreman should have realized that the defense would sieze any opportunity to overturn this. The decision has been taken, leave it alone dummy!
Report comment to moderator
I just got back from jury duty, BTW. I was not selected.
Report comment to moderator
11. Where in the Constitution is the prohibit against jurors exercising their duties according to their consciences, whether reference is made to the Bible, or Ovid, or last week’s SNL sketch?
Report comment to moderator
#6 Ugh – that’s worse …
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
I guess lots of my frustration about this comes also from considering the sheer cost of taking even a small case through the courts. The system is over-loaded, and costly, and a huge interruption (sometimes a true hardship) for the citizens called on to serve.
The idea of a “re-do” after all the expense and sacrifice on the parts of taxpayers and jurors over reading the Bible during deliberations is upsetting.
What do you think about the move to have certain populations subject to “Sharia” law? Are you opposed to any imposition of religious belief in any court in America, or should there be any exceptions?
Report comment to moderator
I was as surprised as Sawgunner that the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the Bible, but maybe some of the old whackadoodles have retired. Finally some common sense, logic and reason from them.
The Bible reading had nothing to do with the conviction, so there’s no reason a all to overturn the conviction, which is why the defendant’s lawyers are attacking the penalty phase and not the trial. Perhaps the Supremes were not convinced that the issue is ripe enough for resolution. Inasmuch as the conviction itself is not at issue, perhaps they felt this was not the proper set of facts to entertain the issue. Some law clerk somewhere reviewed the record, wrote a memo, and not even four justices thought it was worth hearing oral argument. (And Stevens and Alito do their own cert. work.) I doubt that they took the cost of the trial into account. That has nothing to do with due process. It is someone’s life, after all. Evidently, the Circuit also did not disrupt the State’s case, and they would have reviewed the record in its entirety. The Supremes know this, and they have access to the Circuit decision.
So far, SteveG, in addition to all the Texas judges, we have a district court judge, at least a panel, and probably the full circuit on a petition for rehearing against your view, and now not even four Justices are willing to give the case a tumble. Methinks Lucero has been given due process. Perhaps he shouldn’t have killed those three people.
Next case.
No one can know if this is just not the right case to re
Report comment to moderator
The decision was a simple one: either he deserved to die or he didn’t. That’s a function of the jurors’ opinion. It’s not evidentiary.
Report comment to moderator
It was fair, smart, and biblical. The Bible also reminds us to examine, study, and relearn its precepts repeatedly and continuously, because people are chronic forgetters. Which is exactly what the amoralist nay-sayers want us to do.
Report comment to moderator
A good scriptural reference on government. Hope you all will keep it mind after November 4.
Report comment to moderator
“Do you think it was fair to read right before the jury voted?”
Do I care?
It’s not like the guy wasn’t guilty and already deserved the death penalty THREE times over…
Report comment to moderator
Actually, the Scripture that was read didn’t even mention the death penalty.
Where’s Jon Rowe when you don’t need him?
Report comment to moderator
Momof5: What do you think about the move to have certain populations subject to “Sharia” law? Are you opposed to any imposition of religious belief in any court in America, or should there be any exceptions?
There should be no exceptions. Why would there be? We live under a civil, non-religious, system of laws that apply to all of us. People who believe in certain religions and choose to be subjected to the rules of the religion are free to do so, but when you move into the realm of the laws that all of us are expected to obey and all of us can be subject to penalty for breaking, those are established by elected officials, not religious authority.
Report comment to moderator
MIM is right. The only ones who care about the Bible-reading-in-court issue are the trolls on this blog who want to see every mention of God removed from public life.
Report comment to moderator
Actually Outkast, the only ones who think it’s appropriate are the fanatics who think they’re somehow being persecuted if they can’t inject their personal religious beliefs into every aspect of public life.
Report comment to moderator
The only ones who care about the Bible-reading-in-court issue are the trolls on this blog who want to see every mention of God removed from public life. Yes, if you consider a troll to be someone who actually BELIEVES in our Constitution.
Your imaginary god has ZERO to do with this conviction or the penalty. Would you be as perfectly content if the reading had been from the Koran? Doubt it. Oh, by the way, I’d be just as irritated if the reading was from the Koran.
Get your god out of our lives, please.
Report comment to moderator
Get the only true God INTO your life, Scott. Please!
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (11): … legal decisions are supposed to be based on the law, period. Not your holy book. Not somebody else’s holy book. Just the law.
FRANK: But “law” — in whatever part of the globe you may find yourself — is firmly rooted in holy books.
Indeed, at one time, the only “law” to be found was in holy books.
A Q. for you, Steve: Suppose, merely for the sake of discussion, that the legislature of Arkansas overturned all laws against murder. Indeed, suppose they did so on the basis of a voter referendum that passed with, say, a 75% majority.
Could you accept a “law” like that?
My point is, in your opinion, what is the ultimate standard for what does or does not constitute a legitimate, just “law”? Whatever the majority says it is? Whatever their elected representatives say it is?
What?
Report comment to moderator
We Americans are so stupid. All one has to do is take a look at the history of our European brethren to see the results of allowing religion a role in the administration of justice. Next thing you know,they were putting heretics on trial, torturing them for confessions, and ultimately putting them to death. It became a brutal and inhumane reign of terror.
America has a better way. Leave religion out of it, and apply the law and the Constitution in a dispassionate, fair manner.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t worry. The Supremes didn’t agree with the trolls. Not even 4 of them, which would have granted cert. They know ignorance when they see it.
Report comment to moderator
I visit a lot of blog sites, but Worldmag is the worst at folks flinging the word “troll” around. In the blogging world, calling someone (or a group of people) “trolls” is the equivalent of yelling “a..hole” in a crowded room. At that point, all civil conversation ceases. It’s not a good idea to do it unless you’ve got overwhelming evidence on your side. In the blogging world, it’s considered a breach of etiquette to call folks who disagree with you “trolls”. It also reveals a low level of maturity and inability to tolerate dissent on the part of the individual using the word.
Report comment to moderator
Frank at #30: But “law” — in whatever part of the globe you may find yourself — is firmly rooted in holy books.
Indeed, at one time, the only “law” to be found was in holy books.
That is not true. The Code of Hammurabi, for just one example, was a set of laws created for purely civic reasons, and predates the 10 Commandments. The ancient Greeks and Romans had ample laws created by legislation — not commandments from their gods — for the sake of keeping the civilization orderly.
And in any case, once a principle is distilled into a codified law in the U.S., that is the law and should be all one needs to base a conviction or sentence on. No supplementation from Scripture is necessary.
A Q. for you, Steve: Suppose, merely for the sake of discussion, that the legislature of Arkansas overturned all laws against murder. Indeed, suppose they did so on the basis of a voter referendum that passed with, say, a 75% majority.
Could you accept a “law” like that?
It would never happen, seeing that 100 percent of all people have a personal interest in not being murdered. But if you think my argument is that law should be based purely on majority rule, you’re mistaken.
To try to summarize:
1. Some laws have a clear civil purpose in protecting the community and establishing justice and equity. Laws against murder fall into this category. They are necessary.
2. Some laws exist purely to enforce one group’s religious belief, such as laws that require businesses to close on Sundays. They are wrong and should not be in place.
3. Some laws fall into a grey area. Do laws against prostitution, for example, serve to protect public health or simply to enforce a puritanical sexual ethic that not everyone need be bound by? Those are cases for debate and there are good arguments on both sides.
My point is, in your opinion, what is the ultimate standard for what does or does not constitute a legitimate, just “law”? Whatever the majority says it is? Whatever their elected representatives say it is?
A legitimate and just law should have a clear role in contributing to the safety of people, their fair treatment, protection of their Constitutional rights and protection of their property. This role should be clear on pragmatic grounds without appeal to a religious text or belief.
The civil law of a city, state or country isn’t about what’s morally right. Those things are matters of individual conscience. If your religion tells you certain things are wrong that are nonetheless legal, it’s your responsibility to refrain from them. It is not the government’s responsibility to make sure that everybody refrains from them.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t like the idea of reading the Bible before the conviction but if the guy is guilty he’s guilty and that’s all that should matter.
If I were on the jury I would just take the Prosecutor’s utterances as poetic.
Report comment to moderator
The passage in question establishes as a matter of Christian principle that governments exercise their power legitimately. If we disallow laws because they have a religius backing we must find the U.S. Constitution unconstitutional!
The mere reading of a biblical text that supports the legitmate purposes of government by a citizen fulfilling his responsibility to that government had no bearing on the previously adjudicated guilt of the murderer or the penalties prescribed by the legislature. Lucero’s best hope might rely on the inadequacy of his counsel.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!