YOUR FAVORITE LOGO TV SHOWS ARE ON PARAMOUNT+

Supreme Court Won't Hear Case of Man Sentenced to Death by Anti-Gay Jury

Jurors were afraid he would enjoy life in prison because he is gay.

The Supreme Court has decided not hear the case of a gay man sentenced to death by jurors who harbored anti-gay bias and were concerned he might enjoy his time in prison.

South Dakota now has a clear path to execute Charles Rhines, 61, who, in 1992, murdered Donnivan Schaeffer. Rhines stabbed Schaeffer to death after the man caught him robbing the doughnut store where he worked. He later turned himself in and confessed.

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images

UNITED STATES - APRIL 12: U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington on Thursday, April 12, 2018. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

During Rhines' trial, prosecutors brought forth witnesses who testified about Rhines' sexual orientation, including a woman who said she had seen him "cuddling" with her husband, and that he had told her that her husband loved him more than her.

As the jury deliberated, questions arose that the judge told them he could not answer, including whether the defendant would be able to "brag" about his crime to "young men," if he would be able to marry or have conjugal visits, and if he would have a cellmate.

Former juror Frances Cersosimo told a reporter with The Marshall Project that she "vividly remembers" a juror saying that Rhines might not mind life in prison because he was gay.

“There was a murmuring, everyone said ‘Whaaat?'” Cersosimo recalled, adding that the man then quickly said, “it was a stupid thing to say...I don’t know why I said that.”

The South Dakota state investigator, working for the prosecution, characterized the comment as a “joke,” but that's not how Cersosimo saw it, saying, “It was not a joke.”

Another former juror, Harry Keeney, signed an affidavit for the defense admitting that knowledge of Rhines' orientation contributed to his decision to sentence him to death. The state claims he has dementia, and his wife has also said she "wouldn’t depend upon it,” noting they had just come back from vacation and he was tired.

The majority of the jurors told The Marshall Project that they ruled the way they did for no other reason than the grim details of the case.

“The pictures of the kid, he way he bragged about the kid begging for his life. Those things never leave your head,” said juror Delight McGriff, who couldn't recall anyone making comments about homosexuality, but admitted “this was a long time ago.”

While comments made by jurors during deliberation are normally off-limits, due to something called the "impeachment rule," but a 2017 Supreme Court ruling, Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado found an exception in the case of racist statements. The defense argued that the same logic should apply to anti-gay bias by jurors.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case means that a decision possibly tainted by a jury with anti-LGBTQ views is perfectly acceptable to the legal system.

Latest News