[ad_1]
His lawyers claimed that the lower courts had prevented him from asserting his claims.
Rhines hoped that the Supreme Court would unlock the secrecy of jury deliberations in cases of allegations of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Rhines was tried in 1993 for the brutal murder of Donnivan Schaeffer, 22 years old. He was convicted and sentenced to death.
After the verdict of guilt, the jurors learned that Rhines was gay. While deciding to sentence him to life imprisonment or capital punishment, they sent a note to the trial judge containing questions about his sexuality.
In 2015, the detainee received new public defenders who sought to change his claims by proving the partiality of the jury. In 2016, they questioned jurors during the production of affidavits. One of them recalled that during the deliberations, Rhines was "disgusted" by the fact that Rhines was gay. Another said the jurors, citing the fact that he was homosexual, "thought that he should not be able to spend his life with men in jail".
On appeal, Rhines relied on the notes to argue that prejudice against homosexuals had influenced the juror's sentencing decision.
Rhines' lawyers argued that the Supreme Court's opinion should be expanded to include evidence of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"If we do not solve the problem of homosexuals, we run the risk of causing systemic damage to the justice system, and in particular the sentences imposed by a death penalty jury," they told the judges in their notes.
South Dakota Attorney General Jason R. Ravnsborg said the lower courts were right in concluding that the challenge was barred for procedural reasons, in part because Rhines had waited so long to argue its case.
Ravnsborg emphasized the brutality of the crime when the victim's brainstem was partially severed and questioned the veracity of sworn affidavits.
Although the motions were not procedurally excluded, he explained to the judges in brief that the court should not expand its precedent: "Sexual orientation does not imply same historical, constitutional and institutional concerns as race ".
"Rhines has now escaped justice for a longer time than it allowed Donnivan Schaeffer to live his life, nothing justifies a justice that further delays the imposition of the deserved death sentence for Rhines", he added.
ACLU lawyers have urged the court to intervene and extend its precedent to the case of Rhines.
"A decision to sentence a person to death for homosexuality is a violation of the Sixth Amendment as well as a decision to sentence her to death for a black person," wrote David D. Cole, National Director of Legal Affairs. 39; ACLU.
[ad_2]
Source link