‘If he’s gay, we’d be sending him where he wants to go’: Jurors’ shocking statements saw homosexual man sentenced to DEATH because ‘he would have ‘enjoyed prison among so many men’ – as Supreme Court agree to hear appeal after 26 years

• Charles Russell Rhines was sentenced to death 1993 after murder conviction
• Supreme Court will decide whether South Dakota man’s appeal will be heard 
• Lawyers argue Rhines, now 62, was ordered to die because he is gay and jurors believed he’d have a great time ‘among so many men’ in prison  
• Juror said in 2016 sworn statement: ‘We also knew he was a homosexual and thought he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison’ 
• Another allegedly said: ‘If he’s gay, we’d be sending him where he wants to go’ 
• But state Attorney General claimed jurors weren’t convinced he was gay or weren’t phased because they asked judge if he’d be allowed conjugal visits 
• Convictions are not usually overturned when it comes to opening up details of jury deliberation but two years ago it was allowed in case of racial bias
• However Justice has said homophobia is not as serious as racial prejudice  

A man sentenced to death in 1993 after being convicted of murder, is taking his case to the Supreme Court next week claiming the jury opted for the lethal punishment because he’s gay.

Charles Russell Rhines was told his fate by South Dakota judge after a trial for the killing of Donnivan Schaeffer while he robbed a Grand Rapids doughnut store in 1992, but his legal team are arguing his sexual orientation influenced the outcome.

The Supreme Court will decide whether his appeal will be heard based on if there’s enough evidence jurors were biased.

It is alleged ‘one juror made a joke that Rhines might enjoy a life in prison where he would be among so many men’.

Charles Russell Rhines was sentenced to death 1993 after being convicted on murder charge

Supreme Court will decide next week whether the South Dakota man’s appeal will be heard

After new lawyers for Rhines, now 62, began seeking interviews in 2015, juror Frances Cersosimo claimed in a 2016 sworn statement that a member of the jury said: ‘If he’s gay, we’d be sending him where he wants to go.’

Bennett Blake alleged to an investigator: ‘There was lots of discussion of homosexuality. There was a lot of disgust. This is a farming community.’

Juror Harry Keeney said in a 2016 sworn statement: ‘We also knew he was a homosexual and thought he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison.’

The death sentence was upheld in August 2018 but this time around things could change with a filing from September 7, 2018.

Jurors are not supposed to talk about deliberations. However, in the Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado case, a rare challenge of a conviction was allowed thanks to a 5-to-3 vote two years ago after claims of racial bias.

South Dakota’s attorney general Jason R. Ravnsborg, elected in 2018, is claiming they don’t have grounds for an appeal based on bias

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has said: ‘Racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns.’

But when asked by Chief Justice Roberts whether it could be allowed in cases of homophobia, he wrote: ‘Sexual orientation is not immutable to the same extent as race.

‘No civil war has been fought over it. No politician has ever proposed constructing a wall to keep homosexuals out of the country.’

But South Dakota’s attorney general Jason R. Ravnsborg, elected in 2018, is claiming they don’t have grounds for an appeal based on bias.

Ravnsborg has dismissed comments from jury 26 years ago as a ‘stab at humor’ that ‘did not go over well’.

‘The alleged juror comments here are not clear and explicit expressions of animus toward homosexuals,’ Ravnsborg wrote. ‘At best, they fall into the category of an “offhand comment”. ‘

Referring to a note to the judge signed by the 12 members of the jury during deliberations that asked if Mr. Rhines be ‘allowed to marry or have conjugal visits’, he claimed it proved the jury was ‘not phased by, or even convinced of, Rhines’s homosexuality’.

He claimed it was ‘not even a consideration’. 

The judge did not reply to the note which also asked whether Rhines would ‘be allowed to mix with the general inmate population and if he would ‘have a cellmate’. 

‘What jury conceived of gay marriage in 1992?’ Ravnsborg asked. ‘And the fact that the jurors asked about Rhines’s access to conjugal visits with visitors from outside the prison walls also belies Rhines’s assertion that they believed prison would afford him a harem of male sexual companions.’

Source: Read Full Article