The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth, SO HELP ME GOD

June 11, 2017 7:09 PM

Juror removed for using secret knowledge from the Holy Ghost ("A higher being told me that Corinne Brown was not guilty on all charges, and I trust the Holy Ghost." 27:10-11) . Defendant convicted. Defendant appeals on the grounds that the Holy Spirit is not real but was actually just the Juror's judgment that one of the witnesses was lying. Welcome to Congresswoman Corinne Brown's very unusual appeal.

Former Congresswoman Corinne Brown (D-Jacksonville, Fla.) served from 1993 until 2017 (losing the 2016 election after Florida redistricted). In 2016, Brown was indicted for 22 counts of federal conspiracy and fraud relating to a charity she ran and allegedly looted for personal gain. She pleaded not guilty. In May, she was convicted on 18 of 22 counts. Her appeal is pending.

Court: So let me get a little more specific with you. Have you expressed to any of your fellow jurors any religious sentiment, to the effect that a higher being is telling you how -- is guiding you on these -- on these decisions, or that you are trusting your religion to -- to base your decisions on? have you made any -- can you think of any kid of statements that you may have made to any of your fellow jurors along those lines?
Juror: I did, yes.
Court: Okay. Can you tell me, as best you can, what you said?
Juror: Absolutely. I told them that in all of this, in listening to all the information, taking it all down, I listen for the truth, and I know the truth when the truth is spoken. So I expressed that to them, and how I came to that conclusion.
Court: Okay. And in doing so, have you invoked a higher power or a higher being? I mean, have you used those terms in expressing yourself?
Juror: Absolutely. I told -- I told them that -- that I prayed about this, I have looked at the information and that I received information as to what I was told to do in relation to what I heard here today -- or this past two weeks.
Court: Sure. When you say you received information, from what source? I mean, are you saying you received information from --
Juror: My Father in Heaven. (pages 38-39)

posted by Eyebrows McGee (56 comments total)

Oh, Jesus Christ.
posted by Zerowensboring at 7:13 PM on June 11, 2017 [5 favorites]

No, no, the Holy Ghost.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:16 PM on June 11, 2017 [27 favorites]

Jury Holyghostification.
posted by bunbury at 7:25 PM on June 11, 2017 [9 favorites]

If we have witnesses swear to tell the truth on a Bible, how can we remove jurors for believing in it?
posted by jamjam at 7:33 PM on June 11, 2017 [115 favorites]

I'm okay with this juror being removed. I assume there are alternates. Religious delusion should be included in the list of reasons why a juror can be removed.
posted by hippybear at 7:33 PM on June 11, 2017 [9 favorites]

"If we have witnesses swear to tell the truth on a Bible, how can we remove jurors for believing in it?"

In the link where the judge examines the juror, he actually goes into a whole analysis of how it'd be okay for people to pray about things while they're on a jury, but if God is giving them secret info that the rest of the jurors don't have, it starts to be a problem. (Not least, one assumes, because the accused doesn't have the ability to confront the witness!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:36 PM on June 11, 2017 [57 favorites]

If Muslims, Jews and Buddhists and atheists are witnesses, do they also have to swear on a Bible? How is it binding on people who don't believe in it?
posted by gt2 at 7:57 PM on June 11, 2017 [1 favorite]

Actually very few courts have you swear on a Bible anymore, despite my ever-so-clever title. A typical oath in the US is: "You do affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?"

Swearing "so help me God" or on a Bible has been objected to since literally the founding of the Republic when the Quakers objected to it based on James 5:12. Most jurisdictions no longer use a Bible prop, but if you're in a jurisdiction that does, you can request an alternate religious text, or no text. You can be required to take an oath under penalty of perjury, but not one that refers to God if you don't want to.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:04 PM on June 11, 2017 [40 favorites]

Serious question for the room:

How many people who are reading this exchange and rolling their eyes because the Juror basically said "God made me do it" are also advocates of jury nullification in some other cases? Because that's basically what this is, yes?
posted by parliboy at 8:10 PM on June 11, 2017 [3 favorites]

Good grief, that "just the Juror's judgment" link needs a trigger warning for apocalyptically bad kerning.
posted by key lime guy at 8:12 PM on June 11, 2017 [12 favorites]

My understanding is that jury nullification is saying that the jury doesn't have to apply the law during deliberations because the law doesn't apply or is unjust in the circumstances of the trial.

Saying God told you something about the trial isn't that. Not by a long shot.
posted by hippybear at 8:13 PM on June 11, 2017 [27 favorites]

Jury nullification is when you believe a law is unjust or that it isn't constitutional or is contradicted by other laws or you as the jury don't believe it is being applied in good faith. This is best shown in cases way back when where juries refused to convict people accused of harboring fugitive slaves, because they believed that the fugitive slave laws were unjust. It has *nothing* to do with a belief in god. Though a person's belief in god might prompt them to think a law is unjust. Someone saying, I have seen all the evidence presented to me, and because of my special personal relationship with god, who is telling me that witness A is lying, I vote to convict, is not using jury nullification.

What they are is very stupid, because if they'd just kept the god reason to themselves and said, "I don't believe witness A" there wouldn't be grounds for appeal. But because they had to tell people about the exact reason for their disbelief in witness A, there not only is ground for appeal, but good grounds.

You can't cross-examine god.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 9:22 PM on June 11, 2017 [11 favorites]

How many people who are reading this exchange and rolling their eyes because the Juror basically said "God made me do it" are also advocates of jury nullification in some other cases? Because that's basically what this is, yes?

Whimsical nullification would also apply in cases of corruption, after buying a few jurors. Therefore, the reasons for deciding something in trials should be written for the record, as evidence of juror competence, to be evaluated at any later stage.
posted by Brian B. at 10:32 PM on June 11, 2017 [1 favorite]

I think this is an interesting argument. I mean assuming one believes God didn't actually talk to the juror, the belief in Brown's innocence is coming from his own perception of the events and just framed by their understanding of a relationship with a higher power in assessing truth or falsehood. Their decision in that sense only differs from the other jurors due to how they conceptualize their thinking by use of their faith.

This isn't, I suspect, as uncommon as one might believe or hope, and could run into problems, if held as a reason to remove the juror, due to that. Assume, for example, that by use of this case as precedent lawyers would be able to strike jurors who claimed a personal relationship with God. Given how prevalent I think this belief is, that could run afoul of government involvement with religion as it would eliminate a large group of people from serving on juries due to their faith. If that faith is accepted by the society as not being evidence of mental instability on its face, then there could be some difficulty in drawing a line other than I guess not mentioning how one has reached a decision, which just obscures the issue rather than changes anything.

None of that is to say I'm in favor of having jurors who believe they are speaking with some abstract being, just that it may be a bit trickier situation than it appears to those who don't share that particular strain of belief. But I'm no legal expert and couldn't read the linked scribd docs on this computer, so take those thoughts as you will.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:41 PM on June 11, 2017 [6 favorites]

If Muslims, Jews and Buddhists and atheists are witnesses, do they also have to swear on a Bible? How is it binding on people who don't believe in it?

You can swear on a potato, lying under oath is still perjury.
posted by adept256 at 10:44 PM on June 11, 2017 [5 favorites]

This does make me wonder what a juror should say in case they wish to exercise jury nullification. Doesn't any mention of jury nullification carry with it the risk of being cut out as a juror? Or maybe even of a mistrial being declared? Clearly if I said "a little bird said the defendant is innocent" that wouldn't be accepted, as you can't cross examine little birds either.

So in the case of a clearly unjust law, what's the right action?
posted by nat at 11:04 PM on June 11, 2017

This does make me wonder what a juror should say in case they wish to exercise jury nullification. Doesn't any mention of jury nullification carry with it the risk of being cut out as a juror?

It's literally something you can only discuss once you are in jury deliberation chambers. Merely mentioning that you are in favor of it can lead to your arrest. It's one of those peculiar things.
posted by hippybear at 11:13 PM on June 11, 2017 [2 favorites]

This reminds me of Julian Jaynes' remarkable book The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (previously). His thesis is that consciousness per se is a recent phenomenon, and that people used to interpret their own mental processes as direction from an external source, like a god or spirit talking to them. It's an interesting idea even if it's not well founded, and I think the Defense's position is pretty well in accord with it.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:31 PM on June 11, 2017 [2 favorites]

I love the dilemma in this. The only reason to have this juror removed is if you officially accept that she is telling the truth and someone did speak to her from outside the courtroom. But as everyone else has noted, this is not that strange in a court system that has as one of its standard official beliefs the notion that an oath is a magic spell that binds one to divine punishment.

I was once given an application for degrees into the freemasons, and when asked to explain why I categorically refused to join, I simply explained that I do not believe that oaths have any power. That was kind of a deal-breaker for the guy and he couldn't come up with an argument against it.

I think I still have the form. "Please accurately describe any physical deformities you may have." was one of the questions.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 11:59 PM on June 11, 2017 [4 favorites]

This does make me wonder what a juror should say in case they wish to exercise jury nullification.

Why say anything? Just vote not guilty and refuse to budge. Or just say, "I'm not convinced she did it."
posted by straight at 12:10 AM on June 12, 2017 [3 favorites]

a court system that has as one of its standard official beliefs the notion that an oath is a magic spell that binds one to divine punishment

Interesting. I don't accept this view of oaths, but you have John Locke on your side: 'Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist'. From what you say, it sounds as though you would agree with Locke that no atheist should be allowed to serve on a jury.
posted by verstegan at 12:59 AM on June 12, 2017 [2 favorites]

Juries are finders of fact, so if you want to play nullification games, you'd best couch it in those terms. The court will have no patience for a juror making legal arguments, but there's much less leeway to dismiss a juror who simply believes the accused didn't do it.

But take care in picking which elements of the crime to disbelieve. For example, don't do something dumb like choose to disbelieve a fact stipulated by the defense. It'd also be good to have some sound reasoning behind your disbelief, since the other jurors are going to argue with you about it. You want to convince them you're right.
posted by ryanrs at 2:02 AM on June 12, 2017 [2 favorites]

Scribd.com is so horrible. Is there no orher way to link to the text?
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:43 AM on June 12, 2017 [2 favorites]

Every time I've served jury duty, the judge has made it extremely clear that jurors are not permitted, under any circumstances, to discuss the case with others.
posted by Faint of Butt at 3:21 AM on June 12, 2017 [8 favorites]

The Quaker objection to swearing oaths also has to do with the belief that there should be only one standard of truth, rather than a special form of truth that only applies in certain circumstances.

Whenever I've been sworn in for anything, I've always been asked if I "swear or affirm." Quakers affirm because we are always supposed to be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I've always wondered if I'd kick up a fuss if asked to swear, or just get it over with. I have Quaker friends who are lawyers and who have talked about reconciling themselves to the use of oaths in their profession.
posted by Orlop at 4:09 AM on June 12, 2017 [8 favorites]

You can't cross-examine god.

The dream of the Enlightenment.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:24 AM on June 12, 2017 [5 favorites]

“If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you suffer from schizophrenia.”
posted by acb at 4:44 AM on June 12, 2017 [6 favorites]

Seems fair. Were I tried by a jury of my peers, it'd have to be at least one twelfth crazy.
posted by pompomtom at 5:00 AM on June 12, 2017 [3 favorites]

I mean assuming one believes God didn't actually talk to the juror, the belief in Brown's innocence is coming from his own perception of the events and just framed by their understanding of a relationship with a higher power in assessing truth or falsehood. Their decision in that sense only differs from the other jurors due to how they conceptualize their thinking by use of their faith.

That's how I read it as well. I am not comfortable with removing a juror simply because they believe that God is instructing them about what's true and what's not. None of us really understands how that judgemental balancing act works internally, because it's actually quite impossible to keep track of all the weightings we apply to evaluations of the reliability of evidence.

Anybody who actually believes that working out whether or not another person is telling the truth is a straightforward matter of applying objectively sound standards of reason is at least as deluded as this God-bothering juror.
posted by flabdablet at 5:16 AM on June 12, 2017 [6 favorites]

Religious delusion should be included in the list of reasons why a juror can be removed.

Shouldn't that list include all cognitive constructs? We need jurors that can see behind the veil on the quantum level.
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:18 AM on June 12, 2017 [4 favorites]

[Y]ou have John Locke on your side: 'Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist'.

This is an extremely dangerous proposition. Not just jury service: it would mean an atheist could not hold federal office (in the U.S. at least), become a naturalized citizen, enter into a marriage, or hold a mortgage or even a credit card. Promises, covenants and oaths really are the bonds of human society.

We need jurors that can see behind the veil on the quantum level.

You mean the Veil of Isis???
posted by heatherlogan at 5:29 AM on June 12, 2017

I'm with team The-Juror-Erred-In-Using-Their-Outside-Voice. Clearly modern society does not look kindly on those who profess their belief, without irony, that God is talking to them. Does that belief make them unsuitable for the role of juror? I'm not convinced, and I am very specifically not convinced that the judge's rationale of an "outside source of information" holds any water at all unless he too believes it was actually God talking to the juror, which, come on. I mean, even if it was God, then you can't really question that info, right? And you should trust it, because God. But if it wasn't, then this is just someone who has mistaken information passed from their subconscious for the word of a higher power, in which case they are no different that anyone else when it comes to the nature and provenance of the information.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:42 AM on June 12, 2017 [1 favorite]

And you should trust it, because God.

If we allow the possibility of the information-provider being God, we allow the equally likely possibility of them being Satan pretending to be God. But all theosophical considerations aside, this defense, if allowed to stand, will serve as a convenient smokescreen for any juror compromised through more conventional means. It needs to be nipped in the bud right now.

"This defendant is innocent! I know it!"
"How do you know that?"
"Er-- ah-- God told me! Yeah, that's the ticket..."
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:56 AM on June 12, 2017 [1 favorite]

You can't cross-examine god.

The case of Job v. God is precedent to the contrary, but it gives grounds for treating God as a hostile witness.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 7:14 AM on June 12, 2017 [18 favorites]

I am interested in the possible precedent being set establishing that your communications with the spirit are not real, they invalidate your opinion, and you should keep that mess out of public matters. I have conflicting feelings about this from the viewpoints of skepticism vs. individual rights.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:34 AM on June 12, 2017 [4 favorites]

There is the dissonance that God's existence is assumed in much of the law (the oath, atheists cannot testify in some states) and the non-existence of God is assumed in the judgments.

For example, there have been a number of lawsuits in which a defendant seeks recompense because he/she was wrongly diagnosed with an incurable disease. The disease disappeared, but before it did the patient suffered from the stigma, the treatment, the psychological trauma associated with the illness.

Did the patient ever pray the disease would go away? Could the defendant in the lawsuit claim God cured the patient?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:38 AM on June 12, 2017 [1 favorite]

After reading through a bunch of the transcript, the dismissal of the juror appears to hinge on two key points:

1. That he told the rest of the jurors that The Holy Spirit had instructed him to find Corinne Brown innocent, and critically
2. That he made this proclamation at the very beginning of deliberations, prior to any real analysis of the evidence.

Regardless of your position on divinely inspired information, that sure stinks of improper juror conduct. I am now on Team Judge.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:45 AM on June 12, 2017 [14 favorites]

What's the usual standard for dismissing a juror? What if he said "I can't quite put my finger on it, it all seems to make sense on paper, but I just can't shake the feeling that the witness is lying. I can't in good conscience vote to convict."

It seems like an intentional feature (some would say misfeature) of our system. People's judgment is fallible, that's why there are 12 of them. And we've built in the concept that it's better to erroneously let a guilty person go free than convict an innocent person. So you have to convince all 12 of the facts. Not 11.

I don't think the juror should have been dismissed, absent evidence of a crime like being paid off or intimidated. The stated reason WAS at least about the case and evidence, it wasn't something unrelated like "I don't vote to convict on Tuesdays, regardless of the facts." The juror didn't believe the facts. That's what we ask them to decide.
posted by ctmf at 7:45 AM on June 12, 2017 [2 favorites]

On non-preview, grumpybear potentially shoots my argument right in the foot with point #2. But that doesn't necessarily mean the individual juror hadn't already done his own analysis that a particular witness was not credible. It would be a little more obvious if he had announced this before even hearing the evidence.
posted by ctmf at 7:49 AM on June 12, 2017

The case of Job v. God is precedent to the contrary, but it gives grounds for treating God as a hostile witness.

Objection, your honor, the trial in question occurred thousands of years ago! He...He might not be hostile anymore!
posted by clockzero at 7:53 AM on June 12, 2017

this is not that strange in a court system that has as one of its standard official beliefs the notion that an oath is a magic spell that binds one to divine punishment.
rum-soaked space hobo

There is the dissonance that God's existence is assumed in much of the law (the oath, atheists cannot testify in some states)
dances_with_sneetches

Can we please stop spreading these falsehoods? There is no religious element to the judicial system. As has been repeatedly explained in this very discussion, "the oath" is not a religious oath. The "divine punishment" for lying under oath is a perjury charge, and state laws requiring religious tests were struck down in 1961 in Torcaso v. Watkins.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:15 AM on June 12, 2017 [14 favorites]

It's literally something you can only discuss once you are in jury deliberation chambers. Merely mentioning that you are in favor of it can lead to your arrest. It's one of those peculiar things.

I think you also can't discuss it while deliberating in the jury room. The privacy of jury deliberations is protected but not absolute, especially I think if other jurors inform on you.
posted by grobstein at 8:22 AM on June 12, 2017

The "divine punishment" for lying under oath is a perjury charge, and state laws requiring religious tests were struck down in 1961 in Torcaso v. Watkins.

They are still on the books though, for example, in North Carolina, where it is illegal for an atheist to hold elective office.
posted by thelonius at 8:28 AM on June 12, 2017 [2 favorites]

No, it's not illegal in North Carolina because those laws were ruled unconstitutional. They are on the books but not enforceable, just as some states still have anti-sodomy or homosexual conduct laws on the books that aren't enforceable post-Lawrence v. Texas. For example Texas, the very state involved in that case, still has the law in question in its penal code (Section 21.06).
posted by Sangermaine at 8:32 AM on June 12, 2017 [6 favorites]

There's a social function to laws. They make a statement. They tell non-believers: you are not one of us, you are not eligible.
posted by thelonius at 8:35 AM on June 12, 2017 [3 favorites]

What's the usual standard for dismissing a juror? What if he said "I can't quite put my finger on it, it all seems to make sense on paper, but I just can't shake the feeling that the witness is lying. I can't in good conscience vote to convict."

The job of a juror is to find facts based on evidence presented at trial. Assessing credibility, as in your example, is exactly what a juror is supposed to do, whether or not they can articulate the reasons for a given assessment.

This juror, on the other hand, categorically refused to do the job of a juror.
posted by jpe at 10:53 AM on June 12, 2017 [3 favorites]

I have Quaker friends who are lawyers and who have talked about reconciling themselves to the use of oaths in their profession.

I have never been asked to take an oath in connection with my job which did not provide the option of "affirming" instead (how many times can one swear to uphold the Constitution???). As an atheist, I wouldn't.
posted by praemunire at 11:35 AM on June 12, 2017 [3 favorites]

Good grief, that "just the Juror's judgment" link needs a trigger warning for apocalyptically bad kerning.

That's just scribd being shitty and doing a crap job of trying to display the PDF in a browser.

Scribd.com is so horrible. Is there no orher way to link to the text?

Here's the document as a series of images and here's a text version (crudely rendered, but readable).
posted by Rhomboid at 1:14 PM on June 12, 2017 [1 favorite]

I was sworn into the bar I am a member of by proxy in the state I currently live (Corp counsel so that's allowed). The county court here does all swearing in kind of stuff on the x Monday of the month in x court, before whatever proceeding that happen to be occuring that day. So, they bring the murder defendant in the courtroom, start the proceeding, and then the clerk points at me and says I need to be sworn in.
The judge pulls out the state Dept of Justice (that's what was embossed on the cover) Bible and tells me to place my hand blah blah blah.
They were already doing me a favor with this by proxy stuff, and, oh, the murder defendant was sitting right behind me, waiting for his trial proceeding to begin. And all the other lawyers and attendees in the room. So I decided I didn't have a problem placing my hand on a book I didn't believe in (for sure at least half of it, and even that half....), And if they had a problem, they should have asked me. And was sworn in on the state owned new testament.
Makes a good story, at least.
posted by atomicstone at 4:21 PM on June 12, 2017 [1 favorite]

They're just asking you to affirm your belief that we live in a consensus, objective reality in which facts can be ascertained by observation, and that the object you are touching is a book.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:32 PM on June 12, 2017

What if he said "I can't quite put my finger on it, it all seems to make sense on paper, but I just can't shake the feeling that the witness is lying. I can't in good conscience vote to convict."

Jurors are allowed - encouraged, perhaps required - to use their own judgment to assess the value of the evidence given. They're not allowed to consider evidence not given, but they're definitely allowed to believe "that witness was lying" or "that knife was fake" or "I don't care what that video showed, I don't think his body could move that way so he must not have taken that shot."

And they don't have any obligation to explain their reasons. A juror can listen to the evidence at trial, and decide to vote "not guilty" in the deliberations, and not explain why nor participate in any discussions. It's possible this would be reported, and if a judge thought they had their mind made up before, or in spite of, seeing the evidence, they'd get removed. But they're not required to allow the other jurors' opinions or interpretations sway them at all. It's just encouraged to do so, because the courts hate hung juries, and there's a lot of pressure in criminal trials to reach a 12-person agreement rather than come back with a "reply hazy" result.

However, saying, "I have evidence that the rest of you have not received, and I'm basing my decision on that," is a definite no-no, whether that's "voices from angels" or "I ran a google search on some of the details" or "I have decoded the morse code messages the lead cop was tapping on the desk with his pencil."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 8:58 PM on June 12, 2017 [1 favorite]

After consideration, I think Ms Brown deserves her appeal. A US court cannot take judicial notice of the existence of the Holy Spirit, so the juror's statement must be either ignored or taken metaphorically. Even if the juror's statement rose to the level of an assertion that they would not vote in accordance with the evidence and the judge's directions – something that is at best unclear – that would still not make the judge correct in claiming that the juror was communicating with an outside entity.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:52 PM on June 12, 2017

In a better world this trial would have culminated in a leather-elbow-patched scholar bursting in with a papyrus and shouting "You have to stop the trial! I just decoded Kh. 203-5... and Gnosticism is true!"

(The fact that we don't live in this world is prima facie evidence of a malevolent demiurge btw.)
posted by No-sword at 1:41 AM on June 13, 2017 [3 favorites]

1. That he told the rest of the jurors that The Holy Spirit had instructed him to find Corinne Brown innocent, and critically
2. That he made this proclamation at the very beginning of deliberations, prior to any real analysis of the evidence.

Yeah, that's over the line. Legitimate disagreements about how to describe the process of judging a witness's credibility are one thing, but invoking the Divine as an excuse for putting your fingers in your ears and going la la la I can't hear you are quite another.
posted by flabdablet at 8:16 AM on June 13, 2017

You do not have to swear on ANY religious text, contrary to what someone said above about asking for an alternate to the bible. You can swear on the State constitution, that's what I would choose.
posted by agregoli at 9:35 AM on June 13, 2017

Flabdablet, it isn't what we want from jurors, no, but the actual reasons we eject jurors are pretty limited and they don't include saying "I am totally convinced that the defendant is innocent." Unless we are willing to officially agree with the judge's position that the Holy Spirit exists, we should just sigh and accept that you get bad jurors occasionally, and it's the way the system errs on the side of no-conviction.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:06 PM on June 13, 2017 [1 favorite]