About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

39 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 579 (2012-2013)
Bibles in the Jury Room: Psychological Theories Question Judicial Assumptions

handle is hein.journals/onulr39 and id is 597 raw text is: Bibles in the Jury Room: Psychological Theories Question Judicial Assumptions MONICA K. MILLER,' JOSEPH DIMITROV, BRIAN H. BORNSTEINm & ASHLEY ZARKER-SORENSEN I. INTRODUCTION When jurors go into a jury room to determine a verdict or sentence, they are expected to use only the facts and the law presented to them.' Occasionally, however, jurors refer to other sources, such as the Bible, to assist them in making this decision; for example, jurors might use Biblical passages such as an eye for an eye2 or judge not, that ye be not judged3 in order to help them make sentencing decisions during death penalty cases. These phrases allow the juror to feel less responsible for the outcome (e.g., death penalty). Judges must decide whether the jurors' reliance on this extra-legal material-biblical phrases-violates the defendant's rights.' Some scholars and courts have determined that the use of the Bible during deliberations is harmless.5 In contrast, some scholars and courts have determined that sentences that are influenced by the Bible potentially violate the defendant's rights under the First, Sixth, and/or Eighth Amendments.6 Still others have determined that the Bible is an impermissible outside source and should not be consulted at all during deliberations. The first purpose of this Article is to summarize the appellate cases in which courts have considered whether the jury's use of the Bible is * Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Justice and Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program in Social Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno; B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; J.D., University of Nebraska College of Law. ** Honors Student, University of Nevada, Reno; B.A. Criminal Justice (Pre-law track) and Political Science (expected 2013). *** Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Associate Director, Law-Psychology Program; B.A. Psychology, Duke University; M.A. and Ph.D. Psychology, University of Pennsylvania; Master of Legal Studies, University of Nebraska College of Law. **** B.A. Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, Reno. 1. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982); United States v. Howard, 506 F.2d 865, 866 (5th Cir. 1975) (citing Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454,462 (1907)). 2. Exodus 21:24 (God's Word). 3. Matthew 7:1 (King James). 4. See infra Part II. 5. See infra Part 1l. 6. See infra Part I. 7. See infra Part ll. 579

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most