Supreme Court rejects homosexual death row inmate's appeal AGAIN after he claimed anti-gay juror sentenced him to die in 1993 because he 'might enjoy a life in prison where he would be among so many men'
- Charles Russell Rhines, now 62, was sentenced to death in South Dakota in 1993
- He was convicted of fatally stabbing a store employee during a robbery in 1992
- Rhines has been appealing his death sentence on the grounds that his sexual orientation influenced the jurors' decision to give him a lethal punishment
- The Supreme Court previously rejected a similar appeal he made in 2018
The Supreme Court is again rejecting a gay death row inmate's appeal that claims jurors in South Dakota were biased against him because of his sexual orientation.
Charles Russell Rhines, now 62, was sentenced to death in 1993 after being convicted of murder for fatally stabbing doughnut shop employee, Donnivan Schaeffer, while robbing the Rapid City, South Dakota, store in 1992.
Rhines' legal team legal team took his death row appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Rhines sexual orientation influenced the outcome, claiming that his jury opted for the lethal punishment because Rhines is gay.
The Supreme Court rejected South Dakota death row inmate Charles Russell Rhines' appeal claiming that his jurors were biased against him because of his sexual orientation. He's pictured at left in the 1990s and at right in a more recent mugshot
On Monday, the justices opted to leave Rhines' death sentence in place. No comment about their decision was issued.
Justices had rejected a similar appeal from Rhines in 2018.
Rhines' appeal followed the high court's 2017 ruling that evidence of racial bias in the jury room allows a judge to consider setting aside a verdict.
Rhines claimed one juror made a joke saying that 'Rhines might enjoy a life in prison where he would be among so many men'.
Rhines was convicted of murdering a doughnut shop employee during the commission of a robbery in 1992
In 2015, Rhines' new lawyers began seeking interviews in an effort to shore up their appeal and, in a 2016 sworn statement, juror Frances Cersosimo claimed that a member of the jury said: 'If he's gay, we'd be sending him where he wants to go.'
Meanwhile, juror Bennett Blake alleged to an investigator: 'There was lots of discussion of homosexuality. There was a lot of disgust. This is a farming community.'
And, 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.'
Although Rhines' death sentence was upheld in August 2018, it was thought that the new filing could bring about a different result.
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.
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.
The jury found Rhines guilty of murdering Donnivan Schaeffer, a doughnut shop employee, and given a death sentence for the crime. Schaeffer's grave marker is shown here
The Supreme Court previously rejected a similar appeal that Rhines had filed in 2018
Share this article
'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 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.'
There is no set limit of appeals that a death row inmate can submit.
