Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LGBT
Related: About this forumJurors thought a gay man would enjoy prison. They sent him to death row instead.
Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2018, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)
Chris Hayes Retweeted:Incredible story from @chronic_jordan:
Jurors thought a gay man would enjoy prison. They sent him to death row instead. Will the Supreme Court intervene?
Link to tweet
JURORS THOUGHT A GAY MAN WOULD ENJOY PRISON. THEY SENT HIM TO DEATH ROW INSTEAD. WILL THE SUPREME COURT INTERVENE?
Jordan Smith
June 13 2018, 2:45 p.m.
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. Hed been fired from the shop a few weeks earlier, but hed kept a key. Using a flashlight, he made his way to the stores 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.
Rhines was convicted of murdering Schaeffer the following year and sentenced to death. But lawyers appointed to handle his case say that the sentence was tainted and should be overturned. Specifically, they argue that Rhines, who is gay, was discriminated against when anti-gay bias infected the jury room, violating Rhiness right to an impartial jury and due process. Lawyers for the state say thats nonsense and the heinousness of the crime was what sent Rhines to death row. So far, the courts have sided with South Dakota. Rhiness lawyers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene; on June 14, the justices are slated to decide whether to do so.
There were signs early on that the jurors deciding whether Rhines should be sentenced to life in prison or to death might have been considering more than the facts of the case before them. During deliberations, the panel sent a note out to the judge. They had a list of pointed questions about what life in prison would mean. Would Rhines have a cellmate? Would he be allowed to create a group of followers or admirers? Would he be allowed to have conjugal visits? They apologized if any of the questions were inappropriate, but indicated that they were important to their decision-making. The judge declined to answer, telling the jurors that all they needed to know was in the jury instructions theyd received. Eight hours later, they sentenced Rhines to death.
In the intervening years, Rhines appealed his conviction on various claims including that his lawyers had provided ineffective assistance of counsel but it wasnt until late 2016 that the newly appointed federal capital defenders found the jury note and realized its significance. That jury note jumped out at us, said Shawn Nolan, head of the capital habeas unit of the Federal Community Defender Office in Philadelphia (often appointed to handle capital litigation in states like South Dakota, where there is no local capital habeas unit). It was pretty glaring that there was some anti-gay bias going on in the jury room.
Jordan Smith
June 13 2018, 2:45 p.m.
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. Hed been fired from the shop a few weeks earlier, but hed kept a key. Using a flashlight, he made his way to the stores 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.
Rhines was convicted of murdering Schaeffer the following year and sentenced to death. But lawyers appointed to handle his case say that the sentence was tainted and should be overturned. Specifically, they argue that Rhines, who is gay, was discriminated against when anti-gay bias infected the jury room, violating Rhiness right to an impartial jury and due process. Lawyers for the state say thats nonsense and the heinousness of the crime was what sent Rhines to death row. So far, the courts have sided with South Dakota. Rhiness lawyers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene; on June 14, the justices are slated to decide whether to do so.
There were signs early on that the jurors deciding whether Rhines should be sentenced to life in prison or to death might have been considering more than the facts of the case before them. During deliberations, the panel sent a note out to the judge. They had a list of pointed questions about what life in prison would mean. Would Rhines have a cellmate? Would he be allowed to create a group of followers or admirers? Would he be allowed to have conjugal visits? They apologized if any of the questions were inappropriate, but indicated that they were important to their decision-making. The judge declined to answer, telling the jurors that all they needed to know was in the jury instructions theyd received. Eight hours later, they sentenced Rhines to death.
In the intervening years, Rhines appealed his conviction on various claims including that his lawyers had provided ineffective assistance of counsel but it wasnt until late 2016 that the newly appointed federal capital defenders found the jury note and realized its significance. That jury note jumped out at us, said Shawn Nolan, head of the capital habeas unit of the Federal Community Defender Office in Philadelphia (often appointed to handle capital litigation in states like South Dakota, where there is no local capital habeas unit). It was pretty glaring that there was some anti-gay bias going on in the jury room.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 1240 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jurors thought a gay man would enjoy prison. They sent him to death row instead. (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2018
OP
That's some dismal shit. With the availability of firearms, does a knife really show a ....
marble falls
Jun 2018
#1
marble falls
(57,112 posts)1. That's some dismal shit. With the availability of firearms, does a knife really show a ....
ready willingness to commit a capital murder? The interest of the jury in the defendant's sex life is grounds for a mistrial, in that they would never set free a straight defendant in the same situation because they'd fear his rape in prison. They obviously considered "facts" not in evidence.
I couldn't find it anywhere, but how did the defendant's sexuality even get into the record?