Will the defense quote from biblical scriptures during closing argument?

[crucibelle]

I don't think it would be very smart, because some of the jurors might follow a religion other than Christianity and some of them might even be Atheists. Those types of jurors could be put off by quoted scripture from the Bible.

 

[FedRafaFan]

I don't think this would ever be allowed in this case. I would guess that religion was at issue in the cases where it was permitted. It has NEVER been an issue in this case.

But Baez is dumb enough to try.

 

[smartsass]

MOO-

I have thought from the start something "off" about that statement from juror #4, it set my hinky meter off. As many have said here and elsewhere, I often find that those who say they don't judge/can't judge/don't like to judge, will not only cast the first stone, but the biggest stone, the most stones, and the last stone. I am no longer concerned about juror #4 and as others have pointed out, for every one verse in the bible for argument "a" at least one and then some can be found for argument "b", not to mention the same verse can be used to support arguments a and b and then some.

Awesome references, thank you!!!

 

[dilbert]

IMO religion should never be brought in to a courtroom, I'm surprised the court still requires people to swear to God before testifying. What if one doesn't believe in God, then what?

 

[uklaw]

IMO, it's offensive to use the Bible for strategy in a murder trial, and to be frank, I'm offended that anyone would think it's OK.

I don't see it as offensive. It's a Defense Attorney's job to represent his client's interests as best as he can; to achieve the best possible result whilst adhering to his legal, professional and ethical obligations.

None of these are offended by a passing reference to scripture (and as shown in the cases I referenced, prosecutors have often done it in the past). Therefore, it is quite acceptable. The attorney is simply doing his/her job.

 

[uklaw]

It seems like it'd be a bit much to focus an aspect of your closing argument on one juror. I mean, I understand that the assumption here in this scenario is that this juror could hang the jury. But it still seems really risky. If she was so prone to not vote guilty, according to this scenario, and JB was so invested in this that he'd quote Scripture, well, isn't it overkill? I mean, if he's so sure she's probably on his side, shouldn't he be spending his time targeting those who aren't? It would take an awful lot to vote against 11 other people, day after day after day, when you've been sequestered with them for so long. Also, if she was on the fence, and was offended by the quoting, it could blow up in his face.

Bottom line: it seems too risky in some ways, with too little pay off in return.

I wouldn't invest so much closing argument on to any one individual juror.

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that JB turn his closing argument into a 4 hour sermon but rather make passing reference to one or more of the scriptures I referenced whilst pointing to the lack of direct evidence. No more than 1 minute would be made up by this.

The idea, would be if it appealed to this juror that she would remember it but for those who it means nothing to they would be inclined to forget it.

 

[uklaw]

The JURY instructions will require the jurors to measure the weight of evidence based on what was allowed in and their own personal experiences. The judge will ask them to render a verdict based upon the LAW that is applicable. Regardless if they believe the law is correct or fair, they are to render a verdict based upon that law - whether they agree with it or not. If the law states that certain things factor a murder into being premeditated or not, thus calling for the death penalty, and the jurors agree that the evidence shows this was premeditated, then that is how they legally must render their verdict.

I know.

But what the jury are instructed to do and what they actually do are two different things. They are humans after all and it is too simplistic and indeed unrealistic to think that all 12 jurors are going to rigidly stick to the instructions given.

 

[davehead21]

Knowing JB, he probably didn't even think of it, but after seeing this thread he will. I know they read here.

That's exactly what I was going to say. Please, let's not give him any ideas. :crazy:

 

[uklaw]

Seriously. I think the judge was smart enough to realize that juror #4 probably only said what they did to get out of jury duty and he wasn't buying what the juror was selling. MOO.

Not sure, she seems a rather simple women (assuming we believe at least some of what she says). She only uses FB to play farmville, doesn't have many friends, etc.

The cynical side of me is that JP allowed the Batson challenge and kept her because he was speaking to the appellate courts. That he was hoping that his granting a fair amount of deference to the defense on certain issues (clearly to be on the safe side) combined with this clearly erroneous decision in the Defendant's favour would cause a reviewing court to think to themselves "he didn't allow the state to strike HER? I very much doubt he made any decision against the Defendant that was reversible error"

JMO

 

[uklaw]

IMO religion should never be brought in to a courtroom, I'm surprised the court still requires people to swear to God before testifying. What if one doesn't believe in God, then what?

They affirm (non religious form of an oath).

What I don't like in this case is that witnesses are sworn in substantially these terms "Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth in these matters so help you god?".

Clearly if they are affirming it is not "so help you god".

 

[Kat]

I had this thought a while ago but have only got round to posting it today.

Do you guys think Jose Baez will refer to biblical passages in his closing arguments?

This isn't really a debate about religion, the merits of any particular religion or sacred text, Oo whether or not people should live their lives according to any particular religious doctrine.

However, the simple fact is that Juror Number 4 (the African American lady who the state tried to exercise a peremptory strike against), has stated that she has a hard time judging people due to her own religious beliefs. Upon being pressed she stated that she could judge people if she had to and referred to praying about her decision. I don't know if she explicitly stated her religion however, I presume it is save to say that this lady is a christian of some kind.

Like it or lump it this lady will place a lot of sway in the Bible. She doesn't want to judge others due to her religious beliefs, it makes sense that if forced to judge Casey that she will turn to the bible for guidance.

In particular, this is a circumstantial evidence case and there are no witnesses that can say "I saw Casey kill Caylee" or anything similar. Regardless of how one judge's the weight of evidence against Casey, there are simply no witnesses to the death of Caylee Anthony who have testified.

Because of this I think, Deuteronomy 17:6 is a scripture which if Juror #4 is referred to, could cause her to vote not guilty.



Similar scriptures are:



I was reading through the case law and there is not a blanket ban upon quoting scripture during closing arguments. So I think if the defense were smart and able to properly argue the case law (I appreciate that this is a tall order given that Jose Baez will probably be performing the closings). Further, it could be effective in swaying her.

All in all, I think that Jose Baez could use biblical references to try and sway, in particular, Juror number 4.

If anyone cares, I have quoted the summaries of relevant cases below:

This is a really interesting question UK. Thank you for the case references too. That must have been a lot of work.

Do I think Baez will do it? Probably not and not because of the content or what is implied or can be inferred by quoting scripture during closing arguments but rather I don't think he will think of doing it.

Not being nasty about him, I just don't think it will occur to him. I"m being serious too.

Thanks for the food for thought and for presenting such a well researched post!

 

[uklaw]

I don't think this would ever be allowed in this case. I would guess that religion was at issue in the cases where it was permitted. It has NEVER been an issue in this case.

But Baez is dumb enough to try.

No it was not an issue in (at least the vast majority) of the cases quoted. Some of the case summaries clearly show that.

Generally it is a prosecutor quoting such and such a biblical verse especially well known ones.

 

[strawberry]

If he does, and ICA sneezes, she'll think she's a free woman for sure!

 

[uklaw]

If he does, and ICA sneezes, she'll think she's a free woman for sure!

OK, I don't get it.;

 

[tbgo]

lol. I wouldn't put anything past Baez.

 

[gngr~snap]

OK, I don't get it.;

bless you?