Jurors sentence man to death because he’s gay

[Pancho 45574]

 

[Schulz2.0 29069]

“Murderer given death penalty.”

[DigglerontheHoof 21337]

Wow

[freyguy 4335]

Quote

IT WAS SNOWING heavily on the evening of March 8, 1992, when Charles Rhines used a key to let himself into the closed Dig ’Em Donuts shop on West Main Street in Rapid City, South Dakota. He’d been fired from the shop a few weeks earlier, but he’d kept a key. Using a flashlight, he made his way to the store’s office to steal whatever money he could find. But he was interrupted when a courier he knew from the shop, Donnivan Schaeffer, entered the office. Rhines pulled a black-handled buck knife from his bag and attacked Schaeffer, stabbing him three times.

 

[UDontKnow 10515]

How did the doughnuts taste?

[Neonmoon 38130]

If you stab a man to death over register money, you’re pretty much a garbage human being. You deserve all the bad things coming your way. 

That being said, if I got life in prison for something, I would enjoy it more if it was with all women instead of all men. That’s just a fact

[futureman 22566]

2 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Wow

I know, right?  what a ridiculously stupid tweet.  

[TwiceHorn 31705]

To put this in a bit of perspective.  First, in the United States, a jury's verdict is intended, for most if not all purposes, to be a "black box."  The system is set up so that the verdict cannot be questioned, except on two grounds:  the accuracy and legal rectitude of the instructions given to the jury by the judge and if the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.  Neither of these grounds consider the actual jury deliberations or the deliberative process.

Second, the deliberative process of the jury can only be questioned on the basis of "extrinsic evidence" or  something external to the jury:  you can't just interview jurors after the fact and have them say "oh we considered/didn't consider this or that;" no matter how wrong that consideration was, there has to be some evidence of it besides jurors talking about what they did or didn't do after the fact (called "intrinsic evidence").  For example, if you want to prove jury tampering, you do it by finding out who did the tampering and find the check or other smoking gun, you don't just interview jurors and say "hey did anyone influence your deliberations improperly"?

This is a long-established feature of American law and probably was a long-established feature of English law before it prior to 1789.  The reason for its existence is partly to make jury verdicts the final word in most matters relating to a trial and because, to one degree or another, we value the jury's judgment without regard to how it reached that judgment (with the two exceptions noted above).  This is why "jury nullification" is such a hot topic. Everyone knows they do it and it is perfectly legal because the jury is sacrosanct as set forth above.  The question is, should a jury be specifically instructed that it can ignore all the instructions and reach a decision on whatever grounds it wishes.

With that understood, just last year, the Supreme Court ruled that racial bias in the justice system is so pervasive and pernicious that the trial judge and courts may consider even "intrinsic evidence" to see if racial animus played a role in the jury's verdict.  In other words, a relatively narrow exception was created to more than 200 years of racially neutral American law because racial bias in the justice system is such a problem.

In this case, four six Supreme Court justices (there are enough "librul" justices to have granted this one all by themselves 4-5), declined to review this case (grant a writ of certiorari) not because it isn't troubling or because they are fag-hating Trumpkins (they might be, who knows), but because something about this case made it unripe for decision, likely that the evidence of jury "misconduct" is somewhat equivocal and the case is not otherwise well-positioned for Supreme Court review.  It doesn't mean they agree with it.  Or disagree with it.  It's an issue for another day in another case.  One thing that strikes me is that this wasn't in the guilt/innocence phase of a criminal trial, but rather in the capital punishment phase, where the scope of deliberations is different.  Perhaps had it been sexual orientation animus in the guilt phase of a trial, they would have granted cert.  I think they might also prefer less equivocal evidence of the role the animus played.

Edited June 25, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, futureman said:

I know, right?  what a ridiculously stupid tweet.  

Well it came from Pancho, so...

[jimmyjazz 46526]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To put this in a bit of perspective.  First, in the United States, a jury's verdict is intended, for most if not all purposes, to be a "black box."  The system is set up so that the verdict cannot be questioned, except on two grounds:  the accuracy and legal rectitude of the instructions given to the jury by the judge and if the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.  Neither of these grounds consider the actual jury deliberations or the deliberative process.

Second, the deliberative process of the jury can only be questioned on the basis of "extrinsic evidence" or  something external to the jury:  you can't just interview jurors after the fact and have them say "oh we considered/didn't consider this or that;" no matter how wrong that consideration was, there has to be some evidence of it besides jurors talking about what they did or didn't do after the fact (called "intrinsic evidence").  For example, if you want to prove jury tampering, you do it by finding out who did the tampering and find the check or other smoking gun, you don't just interview jurors and say "hey did anyone influence your deliberations improperly"?

This is a long-established feature of American law and probably was a long-established feature of English law before it prior to 1789.  The reason for its existence is partly to make jury verdicts the final word in most matters relating to a trial and because, to one degree or another, we value the jury's judgment without regard to how it reached that judgment (with the two exceptions noted above).  This is why "jury nullification" is such a hot topic. Everyone knows they do it and it is perfectly legal because the jury is sacrosanct as set forth above.  The question is, should a jury be specifically instructed that it can ignore all the instructions and reach a decision on whatever grounds it wishes.

With that understood, just last year, the Supreme Court ruled that racial bias in the justice system is so pervasive and pernicious that the trial judge and courts may consider even "intrinsic evidence" to see if racial animus played a role in the jury's verdict.  In other words, a relatively narrow exception was created to more than 200 years of racially neutral American law because racial bias in the justice system is such a problem.

In this case, four Supreme Court justices (there are enough "librul" justices to have granted this one all by themselves), declined to review this case (grant a writ of certiorari) not because it isn't troubling or because they are fag-hating Trumpkins (they might be, who knows), but because something about this case made it unripe for decision, likely that the evidence of jury "misconduct" is somewhat equivocal and the case is not otherwise well-positioned for Supreme Court review.  It doesn't mean they agree with it.  Or disagree with it.  It's an issue for another day in another case.  One thing that strikes me is that this wasn't in the guilt/innocence phase of a criminal trial, but rather in the capital punishment phase, where the scope of deliberations is different.  Perhaps had it been sexual orientation animus in the guilt phase of a trial, they would have granted cert.  I think they might also prefer less equivocal evidence of the role the animus played.

Man, I do not have time for that TLDR.

Is it acceptable for a jury to basically say "we think a lesser sentence would be appropriate, but because of extenuating circumstances we're going with the harsher penalty"?

[Thetexashammer 1062]

It's almost as if Pancho is scouring the web looking for reasons to be butthurt about what evil meanies Americans are.

[phdhorn 6224]

He murdered somebody.  Don't care much about what happens to him from that point.

Edited June 25, 2018 by phdhorn

[DalTxHornFan 3124]

[TwiceHorn 31705]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Man, I do not have time for that TLDR.

Is it acceptable for a jury to basically say "we think a lesser sentence would be appropriate, but because of extenuating circumstances we're going with the harsher penalty"?

This jury had two choices:  life (without parole presumably) or death.  Anything they said beyond that was utterly irrelevant.  Until last year when the Supremes said, if you say "death because blek/brown/yellow" then there may be a problem.

 

Whether the Supremes took this case on certiorari is a complex question that the OP tweet moronizes. It only takes four votes to grant cert.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

It's almost as if Pancho is scouring the web looking for reasons to be butthurt about what evil meanies Americans are.

You mean whites, right?

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

He murdered somebody.  Don't care much about what happens to him from that point.

Exactly. But Pancho does. Presumably because the jury was white or that’s his presumption. That’s the only reason we’re doing this thread. 

[Newdoc 3465]

So the jury picked the more severe punishment which the guilty man’s sexual orientation played a part in the consideration of punishment and the nature of “punishment”. This doesn’t play the same as death penalty bc color of skin if the rationale from the jury is honest.

[jimmyjazz 46526]

I'm sorry, what?  If I'm reading this right, the jury would have rendered life w/o parole had the defendant been straight.  Correct?

[TwiceHorn 31705]

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sorry, what?  If I'm reading this right, the jury would have rendered life w/o parole had the defendant been straight.  Correct?

There is some bit of evidence that some of the jurors were rather obsessed/disgusted with his homosexuality.  They also asked the judge some questions about what life in prison would be like.  The defense tied those two together nicely to make it seem like the jury thought he would be in buttsecks heaven or some such, but I don't think it is nearly that clear.

It's the punishment phase of a capital trial, after guilt has been determined.  I think the Supreme Court would have been more likely to take it if it had been in the guilt/innocence phase.  It also had a very convoluted appeal history that made it somewhat more unlikely that they grant cert.

The point remains that the Supreme Court doesn't grant certiorari, as s general principle, based on agreement or disagreement with the holding or result of the case.

Edited June 25, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 46526]

I don't get why you're so wrapped  up in the intricacies of SCOTUS and their options.  I'm just trying to make sure I'm not taking crazy pills for thinking it's fucking absurd that a jury took into account a man's sexuality when deciding between 2 sentences.

I guess this is because SCOTUS refused to consider the case?  OK, I get that.  The fact that it happened in the first place is mind-boggling.

Edited June 25, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[TwiceHorn 31705]

23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't get why you're so wrapped  up in the intricacies of SCOTUS and their options.  I'm just trying to make sure I'm not taking crazy pills for thinking it's fucking absurd that a jury took into account a man's sexuality when deciding between 2 sentences.

I guess this is because SCOTUS refused to consider the case?  OK, I get that.  The fact that it happened in the first place is mind-boggling.

Because there are two aspects to it.  What happened and what the courts do about it, in terms of figuring out what happened and remedying it if what happened was unlawful.

It isn't clear what happened.   There's some evidence that that may have been what happened.

And the OP's tweet and most here seem to implicity think "oh that's bad, the Supremes should fix that," which reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court does.

If anyone cares to read the facts of the case and the argument, spun favorably toward the defendant, his cert petition is here.  The facts begin on page 3.  Taking it most favorably toward the defendant, there seems to be some evidence that some of the jurors didn't like homosexuals (the trial was in 1993), based on affidavits made 23 years later.  But it isn't particularly clear that that bias drove the decision.  The objective evidence is that the jury asked some questions about what life in prison would be like (can see this coming up with any death penalty jury).  The jury took another 8 hours after being denied answers to those questions to deliver the death penalty verdict.  The affidavits 23 years later (about what other people said and thus hearsay) make those questions seem like they were concerned with his homosexuality.  It isn't an easy case, on that ground.

 

Possibly more troubling is that the prosecution took several opportunities to "highlight" his orientation.

Edited June 25, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Brothahorn 10088]

There is some bit of evidence that some of the jurors were rather obsessed/disgusted with his homosexuality.  They also asked the judge some questions about what life in prison would be like.  The defense tied those two together nicely to make it seem like the jury thought he would be in buttsecks heaven or some such, but I don't think it is nearly that clear.
It's the punishment phase of a capital trial, after guilt has been determined.  I think the Supreme Court would have been more likely to take it if it had been in the guilt/innocence phase.  It also had a very convoluted appeal history that made it somewhat more unlikely that they grant cert.
The point remains that the Supreme Court doesn't grant certiorari, as s general principle, based on agreement or disagreement with the holding or result of the case.

I don't get why you're so wrapped  up in the intricacies of SCOTUS and their options.  I'm just trying to make sure I'm not taking crazy pills for thinking it's fucking absurd that a jury took into account a man's sexuality when deciding between 2 sentences.
I guess this is because SCOTUS refused to consider the case?  OK, I get that.  The fact that it happened in the first place is mind-boggling.

Well the old folks do have a saying about 'happier than a punk in the pen'(no homophobe). So maybe the jury was full of olds.

[TwiceHorn 31705]

17 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

Well the old folks do have a saying about 'happier than a punk in the pen'(no homophobe). So maybe the jury was full of olds.

They were South Dakotans 25 years ago, so yeah, they were "olds."  Very white olds, no doubt.  Never heard that expression.

Also, this whole thing brings up something.  Why a jury did what it did is almost unknowable.  Trying to legally review cases based on the unknowable "whys" of a jury is a pretty hazardous undertaking.  Even in this case, you have three of twelve jurors who expressed some animus toward a gay defendant. But it is far from clear that the other nine shared that opinion, or that the animus of the three led the jury of twelve to its verdict. 

In the racial arena, it looks like any time there's a credible whiff of racial animus in a jury deliberation, it means a retrial (I don't see any other way to cure it).  I think I'm ok with that, but it's a godawful mess.  Actually, all the recent decision requires is consideration of juror testimony about deliberations, it doesn't give any guidance about how to determine if a jury was impermissibly racially motivated in reaching its verdict.

Edited June 25, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[APMP 688]

In this case, four Supreme Court justices (there are enough "librul" justices to have granted this one all by themselves), declined to review this case (grant a writ of certiorari)

At least six justices declined if nobody recused themselves I think.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

56 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't get why you're so wrapped  up in the intricacies of SCOTUS and their options.  I'm just trying to make sure I'm not taking crazy pills for thinking it's fucking absurd that a jury took into account a man's sexuality when deciding between 2 sentences.

I guess this is because SCOTUS refused to consider the case?  OK, I get that.  The fact that it happened in the first place is mind-boggling.

Do you act like this in person? You must be insufferable.

[TwiceHorn 31705]

10 minutes ago, APMP said:

 

 

At least six justices declined if nobody recused themselves I think.

 

RIght, I fucked that up. Fixed. Four of nine justices must agree to grant cert.  The "libruls" don't even need Kennedy, which is good, because he hates him some criminal defendants most of the time.

Edited June 25, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 46526]

5 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Do you act like this in person? You must be insufferable.

Why yes I do, and I guess I am.  What exactly is it about me that has you so bunched up?  You might want to try a different website.

[RoundRobin 828]

37 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Do you act like this in person? You must be insufferable.

Ward, you’re being a little hard on the Beaver. 

[Pancho 45574]

5 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

It's almost as if Pancho is scouring the web looking for reasons to be butthurt about what evil meanies Americans are.

Nope you idiots.

But what does being American have to do with anything?

[52-80 19288]

i bet the murder was FAB-U-LOUS

[El Diablo 4232]

4 hours ago, 52-80 said:

i bet the murder was FAB-U-LOUS

I'm sure he agonized over where to put the stab wounds. "One thru the heart? No, that would indicate some love interest... In the back? Maybe, if it's lower back. I need to call Ken, he'll know, he's so good with these things."

[NameAlreadyInUse 5141]

If I ever killed someone, as a gay man I'd prefer death over life in prison.  The way this jury thought it would be a picnic for a gay man in prison is exactly what the other inmates think.  They think just because a person is gay, he wants sex with all men all the time, therefore gay men tend to become prison playthings that get raped on the regular.  

To be clear, they have actually done the opposite of what they intended.  They lessened his punishment by giving him the death penalty.

For the record, I'm generally against the death penalty because we shouldn't be killing innocent people, even if they are shitbags.  However, if the evidence is clear that he was guilty, the death penalty was the appropriate response, given the two sentencing choices, regardless of the sexual orientation of the defendant.

[TwiceHorn 31705]

13 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

Nope you idiots.

But what does being American have to do with anything?

The tweet refers to US courts.  The tweeter is from NZ.

[Bevo 13660]

Who knows the reasoning for jury decisions? I though a judge would just read the punishment not the reasoning for the punishment.

[clapclapclap 9000]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The tweeter is from NZ.

Mr. Tweedie or the nanny?

[TwiceHorn 31705]

24 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Who knows the reasoning for jury decisions? I though a judge would just read the punishment not the reasoning for the punishment.

Jurors aren't asked for their reasoning as a general rule.  In criminal cases, the verdict is just guilty/not guilty.  In civil cases, they are frequently given a set of written yes/no questions and a damages question or two.  Beyond that, the system does not permit anyone to ask jurors about their reasoning or provide any mechanism for considering it.  Lawyers often interview jurors after a trial, but that is for the lawyers' own edification,   Now, I am sure it will become common practice to inquire whether the defendant's race was a factor.

 

In this case, the jurors sent the judge a series of questions about prison life, that are facially fairly innocuous and the judge declined to answer them and the jury took another eight hours to decide on the death penalty.  Long after the fact, 23 years to be precise, the defense obtained affidavits from jurors indicating that three of them expressed "gay animus" during deliberations.  When you take the two together, a case can be made that the questions asked of the judge were geared toward determining whether a gay man might enjoy prison.

 

It is a bit suspect, but far from certain, that they gave him death because otherwise he would be in buttsecks heaven.

Edited June 25, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Sounds like they sentenced him to death because he stabbed a man to death  while he was committing a felony. 

[4th and 5 4928]

if you jack a donut shop, you're gonna get caught by the cops.

[SideSlip 35]

On 6/24/2018 at 8:15 PM, Rex Kramer said:

Exactly. But Pancho does. Presumably because the jury was white or that’s his presumption. That’s the only reason we’re doing this thread. 

White people are the worst.

[52-80 19288]

15 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Sounds like they sentenced him to death because he stabbed a man to death  while he was committing a felony. 

that's exactly what a bigot would say.  

[Sandman 3420]

18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Jurors aren't asked for their reasoning as a general rule.  In criminal cases, the verdict is just guilty/not guilty.  In civil cases, they are frequently given a set of written yes/no questions and a damages question or two.  Beyond that, the system does not permit anyone to ask jurors about their reasoning or provide any mechanism for considering it.  Lawyers often interview jurors after a trial, but that is for the lawyers' own edification,   Now, I am sure it will become common practice to inquire whether the defendant's race was a factor.

 

In this case, the jurors sent the judge a series of questions about prison life, that are facially fairly innocuous and the judge declined to answer them and the jury took another eight hours to decide on the death penalty.  Long after the fact, 23 years to be precise, the defense obtained affidavits from jurors indicating that three of them expressed "gay animus" during deliberations.  When you take the two together, a case can be made that the questions asked of the judge were geared toward determining whether a gay man might enjoy prison.

 

It is a bit suspect, but far from certain, that they gave him death because otherwise he would be in buttsecks heaven.

"Gay animus" sounds like a freaky sex move. Probably scared some jurors.

[TwiceHorn 31705]

20 minutes ago, Sandman said:

"Gay animus" sounds like a freaky sex move. Probably scared some jurors.

So does buttsecks heaven, but they seem to have invented the concept.  Projection and all.

[phdhorn 6224]

3 hours ago, SideSlip said:

White people are the worst.

Hey, wait a minute, fella!  Some of my best friends are white people!

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

43 minutes ago, Sandman said:

"Gay animus" sounds like a freaky sex move. Probably scared some jurors.

Decent Techno band name too.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

Hey, wait a minute, fella!  Some of my best friends are white people!

Maybe they're just lying about being white.

[El Diablo 4232]

43 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Maybe they're just lying about being white.

Or lying about being his friend.