September 1, 2008

Jury Tampering: Guilty, by God

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Oliver v. Quarterman

In New York State, before a witness takes the stand at trial, he either places his hand on a Bible and swears to tell the truth, or, if he objects to swearing, he affirms under penalty of perjury to tell the truth. Then he can take the stand, say whatever he wants, and be cross examined accordingly.

But what happens if that Bible ends up in the jury room when deliberations are under way? The Oliver decision is a must read for anyone interested in the relationship between the Bible and the gavel. Khristian Oliver was tried for murder in Texas: Joe Collins came home to discover Mr. Oliver burglarizing his home. Oliver then shot Mr. Collins and while he lay mortally wounded on the ground, struck him several times in the head with a rifle butt, killing him. After a trial, Oliver was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.

Mr. Oliver appealed. He claimed that there were at least four Bibles in the jury room and that one juror read a Bible aloud to a small group of other jurors, thereby influencing their deliberations. A number of passages were read, but this one from the book of Numbers gave rise to his appeal: “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.” This hit too close to home for Mr. Oliver. Given the Bible's authority among some folks, and that it is not evidence or the law of Texas, Oliver argued for a new trial. The state court entertained his complaint and held hearings, but concluded that the jury did not act improperly. Although some jurors had looked at the Bible, the court held that the jury was not affected “by any outside influence” and had rendered its verdict in accord with court’s instructions and the evidence presented.

After exhausting his state court appeals, the defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus from the US District Court. It was denied. He then took his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Jury tampering occurs when a jury is influenced by any means except evidence presented in open court. Anything not presented in court is an external influence and is generally not permitted. Was the Bible, particularly the reading of the damning passage that mandates death for a person who kills someone by striking him with iron (as defendant Oliver did) an external influence on the jury? According to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, it was both an external influence and Constitutional error: “[T]he jury’s use of the Bible here amounts to a type of ‘private communication, contact, or tampering’ that is outside the evidence and law...” Of course this begs a number of questions, not the least of which is: A type of private communication or contact with whom?

Putting aside that question for the moment, the court, in fact, accepted Oliver's argument. But did it matter?

Because this was a habeas petition, the Federal court had to determine if the Bible’s external influence was harmless error, which in these proceedings meant whether it had “a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Since the Texas courts already held hearings on this question and decided the jury was not influenced by the Bible or the passages read, the U.S. Appeals Court ruled that the accused “failed to rebut the state court’s factual finding that the Bible did not prejudice the jury’s decision.” Accordingly, Oliver's writ of habeas corpus was denied again.

For now, the verdict stands.

Maybe there are other avenues of appeal for Mr. Oliver, and maybe he will get the last laugh, but the Bible also says “The wicked plot against the righteous...but the Lord laughs...because he knows their day is coming. For Mr. Oliver, this is no laughing matter. Maybe he would be best served appealing his judgment pro se by seeking his own private communication and contact before that day arrives.


June 24, 2008

Jihad: Terrorists, Terror Rights & Terror Wrongs

U.S. Supreme Court: Boumediene v. George W. Bush, President of the United States

Habeas Corpus is Latin for “you have the body.” Prisoners in America who think they are being held unjustly can seek to get out of jail by filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Writ compels the authorities detaining the prisoner to show that he or she is being held legally. This is the life blood of our judicial process: just cause and due process. Absent such a showing, the person must be released. The Writ of Habeas Corpus has been a cornerstone of American justice, ensuring that no authorities are above the law or can freely abuse their significant power to imprison individuals. Historically, this right has been accorded all citizens and residents of the United States.

In Boumediene v. George W. Bush (decided June 12, 2008), the US Supreme Court took up the war on terrorism, specifically the issue of enemy combatants held at Guantanamo and whether they have the same right to Habeas Corpus as other Americans. In a 5 – 4 decision, the court ruled that enemy combatants, some of whom have been held captive for over six years, have such a right. The majority concluded that even enemy combatants cannot be held indefinitely in what may be a very long war on terrorism. In a blistering dissent, however, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the majority was inserting itself into political questions traditionally left to elected officials to resolve, into the execution of American foreign policy, the responsibility for which has always been the province of the executive branch (the president) and was creating procedural rights for our enemies that could put our troops and national security in danger by granting detainees a possible right to demand evidence about the war effort.

These are unique times we live in: Either we are committing political suicide by granting powerful procedural rights to prisoners of war who were enemy combatants committed to the destruction of our way of life before their incarceration, or we are putting our lofty principals to action and trusting that the possible release of an Al Qaeda member or Jihadist is worth the price of extending civil procedural protections to all individuals detained by American authorities, even in time of war. It seems like the Supreme Court is just as divided as the rest of us on how to deal with terrorism in a free and democratic society.

Only the future will tell whether the collective wisdom of the majority decision has strengthened our country and the principals which have made it great, or whether its ruling is out of touch with the harsh realities of these times and has given those committed to our destruction another weapon to use against us. Stay tuned.