Slate Headline Claims Man Was Sentenced to Death Because He's Gay - But Doesn't Mention He's a Murderer

Slate Magazine published an article titled, “A Jury Likely Sentenced a Man to Death Because He’s Gay. The Supreme Court Just Let Its Verdict Stand,” without mentioning in either the title or first paragraph that the man was found guilty of murdering someone during a robbery.

The man on trial, Charles Rhines, confessed to killing a man in 1992 when he was caught robbing the donut shop he worked at.

The case, Rhines v. South Dakota, is in the current newscycle because of the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to decline hearing the case -- a decision Slate writer Marc Joseph Stern says “undermines gay Americans’ Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.”

Stern argues the case should be heard because Rhines was treated unfairly by the jurors, one of which allegedly said homosexuality is "sinful," while also saying her belief will not affect her perception of the case.

When the jury found Rhine guilty, they then had to decide whether to sentence him to death or life in parole. Stern reports that the jury began asking questions about whether Rhines, as a gay man, would enjoy the prison environment because of his sexuality. Several jurors issued sworn declarations that the case had an anti-gay bias.

Rhines then appealed, arguing his sentence violated the Sixth and 14th Amendment; however South Dakota's “no impeachment rule” does not allow defendants to challenge jury verdicts with evidence from the deliberation itself.

Whether Rhines was treated unfairly is up for debate, but Stern’s argument would be a lot stronger if he at least acknowledged the fact that Rhines is a murderer in the title of the article. Otherwise, it appears the Rhines was sentenced to death for nothing other than his sexuality, which is clearly not the case.

Murder is a pretty important detail to omit, but if the article gets clicks, what does Slate care?