As many Colorado citizens of various faiths today celebrate Palm Sunday, we also commemorate a decision reached 5 years ago on this date by the Colorado Supreme Court to dismiss the death penalty in the case of a convicted rapist-murderer - because a jurist in the case had brought a Bible into the jury room and discussed it with others.

The facts of the case and the conviction were not in doubt.  From the Colorado Bar Association case summary:

“In 1995, a jury convicted Robert Harlan of first degree murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, and assault for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Rhonda Maloney and the shooting of her would-be rescuer, Jaquie Creazzo. The jury rendered a unanimous death penalty decision.”

Harlan’s crime was particularly heinous.  Not only did he kidnap, torture and rape (multiple times) one woman (before murdering her), he also shot another woman attempting to help the victim.

Despite clear establishment of guilt, Harlan’s lawyers tried every trick in the book to dismiss the unanimous death penalty decision reached by the jury - and settled, finally, on a trick involving a book - the Bible.  The Colorado Supreme Court bought into the argument, and in a 3-2 decision (Justice Hobbs, joined by Justice Martinez and Chief Justice Mullarkey in the majority, with Justice Rice and then-Justice Kourlis dissenting and Justices Bender and Coats not participating) used the technicality of “extraneous undue influence” by the presence of (or reference to) a Bible to dismiss the death penalty.

Again quoting from the case summary:

“The Supreme Court concludes that unauthorized introduction into the jury room of the Bible and its text commanding the death sentence for murder could influence a typical juror to vote for death instead of life imprisonment. Under Colorado law, the death penalty is not required for first-degree murder, and it takes the vote of only one juror to refuse the death sentence when the state is seeking the defendant’s execution.

Applying the objective test for ascertaining prejudice to a defendant from juror use of improper, extraneous, and prejudicial materials, the Supreme Court upholds the trial court’s order vacating Harlan’s death sentence and imposing a sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In light of the trial court’s evidentiary findings and exercising its duty to independently review the death penalty, the Supreme Court finds that it can no longer say that the death penalty verdict was not influenced by passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor.”

The full text of the decision - People v. Robert Eliot Harlan - contains additional information on the convoluted reasoning by which the majority reached their decision to vacate the death penalty, as well as the dissent rebutting many of the assertions advanced by the majority and the defense lawyers.

From the dissent:

“The jurors’exposure to Romans 13:1 and Leviticus 24:20-21 was not prejudicial to Harlan because the jurors were required to make an overwhelming moral decision, namely whether the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for Harlan. To this end, the court instructed the jurors to “apply [their] reasoned judgment in deciding whether the situation calls for life imprisonment or the imposition of the death penalty”(emphasis added). The court further told the jurors that “you must still all make a further individual moral assessmentof whether you have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty, instead of life in prison, is the appropriate punishment for [Harlan] in this case”(emphasis added). As such, the jury instructions squarely directed the jurors to consider their moral and religious precepts, as well as their general knowledge, when making a reasoned judgment about whether or not to impose the death penalty.”

Justices Hobbs, Martinez, and Mullarkey - the ruling majority in the case - apparently found that “unauthorized introduction” of the same (improper, extraneous, and prejudicial) document used to swear in the jurors to duty in the case constituted “passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor” in their sentencing decision.

These same justices will be asking for your approval this November to continue making similar decisions.  Don’t give it to them - exercise your right to vote “NO” on the ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and vote “NO” on retaining these unjust justices on the bench for another 10-year term in this year’s November elections!

Tags: Alex Martinez, Chief Justice Mullarkey, Colorado Constitution, Colorado Courts, Colorado General Assembly, Colorado Governor, Colorado Judges, Colorado Legislature, Colorado Mill Levy, Colorado Supreme Court, judical activism, judicial accountability, judicial evaluation, judicial performance, judicial retention, judicial usurpation, Know Your Judge, Mary Mullarkey, Michael Bender, Mill Levy Tax Colorado, Mill Levy Tax Freeze, Mullarkey Court, Mullarkey Majority, Nancy Rice, People v. Harlan, TABOR, tax exemptions, Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, Telluride Land Grab, unjust justices