Rhines stood for trial in 1993 for the brutal murder of
22-year-old Donnivan Schaeffer. He was found guilty and sentenced to death.
After the guilty verdict, jurors learned that Rhines is gay.
While deciding whether to sentence him to life imprisonment or death, they sent
the trial judge a note including questions regarding his sexuality.
In 2015, the inmate received new public defenders who sought
to amend his claims with evidence of the jury bias. In 2016, they conducted
interviews with jurors producing affidavits where one juror recalled that
during deliberations there was "disgust" over the fact that Rhines
was gay. Another said that jurors, citing the fact that he was homosexual,
"thought he shouldn't be able to spend his life with men in prison."
On appeal, Rhines relied on the notes to argue anti-gay
prejudice had influenced the juror's sentencing decision.
The lawyers also pointed to a 2017 Supreme Court opinion holding that while
ordinarily jury deliberations are secret and immune from judicial review, that
rule can be pierced when it comes to evidence of racial bias.
Rhines' lawyers argued the Supreme Court's opinion should be
extended to include evidence of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"Anti-gay bias, if left unaddressed, risks systemic
harm to the justice system, and in particular, capital jury sentencing,"
they told the justices in court briefs.
South Dakota Attorney General Jason R. Ravnsborg said the
lower courts were correct to hold that the challenge was procedurally barred in
part because Rhines had waited so long to make his claims.
Ravnsborg pointed to the brutality of the crime where the
victim's brain stem was partially severed, and questioned the veracity of the
jurors' affidavits.
Even if the claims weren't procedurally barred, he argued to
the justices in briefs that the court should not expand its precedent:
"Sexual orientation does not implicate the same unique historical,
constitutional and institutional concerns as race."
"Rhines has now eluded justice for longer than he
allowed Donnivan Schaeffer to live his life; there is no justice in further
delaying the imposition of Rhines' deserved death sentence," he added.
Lawyers for the ACLU urged the court to step in and extend
its precedent to Rhines' case.
"A decision to sentence a person to death because he is
gay violates the Sixth Amendment no less than a decision to sentence him to
death because he is black," wrote David D. Cole, the ACLU's national legal
director.
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment