David Barton misleads Focus on the Family on death penalty case

Last week, Focus on the Family produced a series of broadcasts titled the Founding of America, featuring David Barton. In one of them, Barton told the audience that the Supreme Court overturned a murder conviction because the prosecutor used a Bible verse in his closing arguments. Here is Barton’s version of the case:

I mean, you do something religious in the courtroom and you’re in a lot of trouble, as evidenced by the case that we had at the Supreme Court not long ago, called Commonwealth v. Chambers. And that case came out of Pennsylvania. A man named Carl Chambers was convicted by a jury for taking an axe handle and brutally clubbing to death a 71-year-old woman to steal her Social Security check.

Not only was he convicted by the jury, he was sentenced to death by that jury. And yet, the Court overturned his conviction, because they pointed out that despite all the evidence and all the witnesses and all the testimony, something terrible had happened in the courtroom. They said that in a statement of less than five seconds, the prosecuting attorney had mentioned seven words out loud from the Bible. And the Court said, “We can’t have that. So, despite the evidence, despite the brutal nature of this crime, you mentioned a Bible verse, now we’ve got to reverse the murder sentence of this brutal murderer, because you mentioned a Bible verse in the courtroom.”

You see, today law and religion are enemies. They don’t get along, but back then, they were like two yoke of oxen, pulling in the same direction, never to be separated.

This description is quite misleading. Barton makes it seem as though a brutal murder went unpunished because the Supreme Court (Pennsylvania’s) penalized the prosecutor for citing the Bible. The facts of the case paint a completely different picture.

First, here are the facts Barton got right. In 1987, Karl Stephenson Chambers was convicted of robbing and killing Anna Mae Morris in 1986. The evidence was circumstantial but convincing to the jury and they found Chambers guilty of robbery and murder. During the sentencing phase, the prosecutor referred briefly to the Bible. The jury then rendered a sentence of death. Chambers appealed and based on the Bible reference, the PA Supreme Court vacated the death sentence.

At this point, the facts diverge from Barton’s rendition. Barton says the “Court overturned his conviction,” leaving the clear impression that the court let a guilty man go free. However, the conviction, or as Barton also framed it — “murder sentence” — was not overturned. The initial sentence of the death penalty was set aside so that a new sentencing hearing could be held. That hearing was held and that jury came back with the same sentence of death. So Barton’s contention that “the Court overturned his conviction, because they pointed out that despite all the evidence and all the witnesses and all the testimony, something terrible had happened in the courtroom” is simply not true.

Eventually, Chambers death sentence was set aside in favor of life in prison, but this change had nothing to do with the use of the biblical reference. In 2005, attorney William Hangley argued before a York (PA) County judge that Chambers could not be executed because Chambers is mentally retarded. In 2002, the US Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing a mentally impaired person was “cruel and usual punishment.” Chambers scored a 60 as a middle school student and 74 as an adult inmate leading the Court to convert his death row fate to life in prison. The federal court agreed which took Chambers off death row. Attorney Bill Hangley confirmed to me in an email that Chambers is still serving his life sentence.

Having established that Barton embellished the situation to make it seem as though the PA Supreme Court was prejudiced in the extreme against religion, let me come back to what the prosecutor said and the rationale of the Court for their ruling. In making a case for the death penalty, York County prosecutor Stan Rebert told the jury, “Karl Chambers has taken a life. As the Bible says, `and the murderer shall be put to death.'”

Why did the PA Supreme Court have a problem with that? Essentially, they argued that the prosecutor improperly appealed to a law other than civil law. Note that the Supreme Court allows some references to the Bible in court but they objected to this one for specific reasons. Here is the section on point from Commonwealth v. Chambers:

Finally, Appellant [Chambers] argues that the prosecutor overstepped the permissible bounds of oratorical flair in his closing argument by referring to the Bible. The record shows that the prosecutor stated, “Karl Chambers has taken a life.” (R., p. 1201). “As the Bible says, `and the murderer shall be put to death.'” (R., p. 1201). Defense counsel objected. The trial court immediately noted this objection and gave a curative instruction to the jury…

Here, the prosecutor argued, “As the Bible says, `and the murderer shall be put to death.'” This reference is substantially different than the references tolerated in Henry and Whitney where the prosecutor allegorically likened the Defendant to the Prince of Darkness mentioned in the Bible to establish that he was an evil person. More than allegorical reference, this argument by the prosecutor advocates to the jury that an independent source of law exists for the conclusion that the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for Appellant. By arguing that the Bible dogmatically commands that “the murderer shall be put to death,” the prosecutor interjected religious law as an additional factor for the jury’s consideration which neither flows from the evidence or any legitimate inference to be drawn therefrom. We believe that such an argument is a deliberate attempt to destroy the objectivity and impartiality of the jury which cannot be cured and which we will not countenance. Our courts are not ecclesiastical courts and, therefore, there is no reason to refer to religious rules or commandments to support the imposition of a death penalty.

Our Legislature has enacted a Death Penalty Statute which carefully categorizes all the factors that a jury should consider in determining whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment and, if a penalty of death is meted out by a jury, it must be because the jury was satisfied that the substantive law of the Commonwealth requires its imposition, not because of some other source of law.

Because the prosecutor’s argument in favor of the death penalty reached outside of the evidence of the case and the law of this Commonwealth, we are not convinced that the penalty was not the product of passion, prejudice or an arbitrary factor and, therefore, pursuant to our Death Penalty Statute, we must vacate the sentence of death and remand this matter for a new sentencing hearing. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(4).

Accordingly, the conviction of murder of the first degree and the conviction and sentence imposed for robbery are affirmed, the sentence of death is vacated and the matter is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of York County for a new sentencing hearing.

I think the reasoning of the PA court does not indicate hostility toward religion per se. On point, the money quote from the Commonwealth v. Chambers is this:

Our courts are not ecclesiastical courts and, therefore, there is no reason to refer to religious rules or commandments to support the imposition of a death penalty.

This was not a situation where the Court discriminated against religious speech. The prosecutor invoked Mosaic law instead of the governing statute – the laws of PA. In conservatively religious York County, PA, I can understand why such directions may generate biased responding by a jury. Furthermore, there are many outcomes envisioned by various religions about what would be proper in cases of murder. The courts cannot include persuasion which appeals to authority other than the statutes which cover all citizens.

David Barton offers this case as evidence that “if you do something religious in the court room,” “you’re in a lot of trouble.” That may or may not be true in certain situations, but, in this case, it seems to me that his concern could be stated more accurately, “if you attempt to implement a pro-death penalty interpretation of Christianity in court as a means of deciding a case, then you are in trouble.”

There are religious traditions that oppose the death penalty on religious grounds. Some of those people might argue the fact that Karl Chambers is alive but in prison today is the best religious outcome. It is certainly possible that those opposed to the death penalty on religious grounds are glad that the PA Supreme Court restricts religious speech calling for the death penalty based on the Old Testament. By inaccurately citing the Chambers case, it seems to me that Barton is not complaining that the PA Court disrespected religion in some general way, he is troubled that the court failed to privilege his religion.

Note: The entire legal history of the Chambers case is available in this District Court decision.


Gospel for Asia Told Staff They ..."
"Well, isn't that nice? Sharing a platform with various gurus and Eastern religious leaders.I guess ..."

Gospel for Asia Told Staff They ..."
"Based on his comments quoted above, I suspect he's already getting tired of it. But ..."

Gospel for Asia Told Staff They ..."
"Surprise, surprise.Both of those hucksters are on the Board of Governors of Driscoll's fancy new ..."

Mark Driscoll Gets His Charisma On

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ken

    Actually, the case isn’t really about religion, it is about a prosecutor attempting to cite laws that don’t apply in the US. And I don’t think the outcome would have been any different, if say the defendant had been from Uganda, (and the community made up largely of Ugandan immigrants), and the prosecutor cited Ugandan law in arguing the defendant should be put to death.

  • Thank you for this blog post .. I have been hearing about some case where the citing of the bible caused the verdict to be thrown out for many years now. I presume it was this one. Wow, how different the facts are from the rhetoric!


  • Bernie

    Yes, thank you for making this case abundantly clear. It was portrayed by Barton, of course, as an attack on Christianity.

    It boggles my mind, as to what extent Barton will lie in order to make his case.

  • Right here in his very first sentence, Barton also manages to be outrageously misleading without actually telling a lie:

    as evidenced by the case that we had at the Supreme Court not long ago

    If you’re trying to get a national radio audience politically riled up, it does very little good to tell them about the alleged misdeeds of a state-level supreme court, because people nationwide have no control over what the Pennsylvania supreme court does.

    But letting your national audience think that SCOTUS was involved immediately puts them in mind of Presidential elections, because it’s that damned crook in the White House who appoints new SCOTUS justices.

    (If called on this, Barton could point out that SCOTUS was indirectly involved in the Carl Chambers case “not long ago”, insofar as a 2002 SCOTUS case became relevant when a Pennsylvania appeals court reduced Chambers’ death sentence to life-in-prison in 2006.

    But that was related to Chambers’ abnormally low IQ, and had absolutely nothing to do with the prosecutors’ citation of the Bible back in Chambers’ original 1987 trial, which was ruled on by the Pennsylvania supreme court in 1991.)

  • Dave J.

    This case sounds like very good protection for people in PA from Sharia Law. I wish Barton seeming lack of specifics should be unsettling to his audience.

  • Geo F.

    I have been doing some of my own checking up on Mr. Barton’s versions of events, and motives. Most recently, I was struggling through the facts behind the case you have discussed here. I had the timeline of events pretty well in order, but could not find any text on the 1991 PA Supreme Court ruling on the 1st (Bible issue) sentencing phase. Then I stumbled on your site and this page. Voila! Research complete for this item!

    So I Thank you. And I commend you on the efforts expended in putting just this one post together. And your commentary is right on target.

    I am pleased to see that you have an ongoing interest in Mr. Barton as well. I have subscribed to your blog, and hope to see additional source info posted.

    On your David Barton page you suggest that Barton focuses on Jefferson and Adams quite a bit. I agree; his ‘famous’ John Adams letter misrepresentation was what launched my ‘career’ into this realm of twisted reality. He has been pushing that one forever it appears. But there is so much that gushes from his mouth (and so fast), and it is so widely spread about on the web. Even though much of it is repeated endlessly, it seems that I am also finding new stories of his to check out every day. Here is a tidbit that perhaps you haven’t come across yet; you have to take a step or two down the ‘Founding Fathers heirarchy…Ethen Allen makes the grade for Barton simply for his quote: ‘In the name of the great Jehovah, and the Continental Congress…’ while in the process of capturing Fort Ticonderoga. Barton, however, does not make any mention that Ethen Allen also wrote a book following the war (1785) ‘Reason: the Only Oracle of Man’ which was specifically targeted against Christianity, it was an unbridled attack against the Bible, established churches, and the powers of the priesthood. (It also never sold very well, but that is beside the point here.)

  • Carol A Ranney

    Throbert McGee# my thoughts exactly. Barton’s wording seems calculated to mislead one to believe it’s the US Supreme Court he is referring to. Every case they hear originates somewhere–this one, he says, came out of Pennsylvania. If indeed he is speaking of the PA Supreme Court (which it turns out he is) then why state that the case came OUT of Pennsylvania? To my mind, the whole thing is a cleverly worded lie with an escape loophole in case he is challenged.