Texas Justice - one more reason I'd let them secede

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Link

Texas' top court approved the death sentence in a trial where the judge and prosecutory had had a secret long-term sexual affair, and continued to have a 'strong relationship' at the time of the trial. Bonus points: the defendant should have raised the issue earlier. Oh, you couldn't because they kept it secret during 10 years of appeals? Your problem.

Edit: changed the language to 'Texas' top court'.
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,415
3
81
This is especially tragic concerning our system of justice since IMO Charles Dean Hood is guilty as hell.

The Crime: On November 1, 1989, Charles Dean Hood was living with his boss, Ronald Williamson, and Williamson?s girlfriend, Tracie Wallace. At 11:30 a.m., Williamson came home for lunch and found a note allegedly from his girlfriend saying that she had gone jogging. However, Williamson suspected something was wrong since Tracie?s name was misspelled on the note. Williamson called the police at 11:53 a.m. and told them that he believed that his girlfriend had been abducted. During this tape-recorded phone call, Williamson indicated that someone named ?Dean? had already called the police from Williamson's residence to report a burglary, but Williamson wanted to add a possible abduction. However, the police noted that no previous calls to the police had been made or recorded from the Williamson residence. A second voice could be heard in the background of the tape; the voice was later identified as Hood?s. Hood was known to go by his middle name, ?Dean.?

When the police arrived at Williamson?s house at 11:57 a.m., they found Williamson dead on the kitchen floor. The police searched the house and found blood outside a closet door, and a weight machine propped up against it. Inside the closet they found Wallace?s body, wrapped in two garbage bags layered on top of each other. Both victims died from gunshot wounds to their heads. Wallace had been shot in her bed, presumably while she slept. Hood?s fingerprints were found on the note allegedly from Wallace, on both garbage bags that had covered her dead body, on the closet door where her body was found, and on documents that had been taken from Williamson?s safe. Hood?s bloody prints were found on the weight machine placed in front of the closet door.

Hood was scheduled to report to work at 12:30 p.m. that day, but did not show up. He was arrested by police in Indiana the next day. At the time of his arrest, Hood was in possession of several items belonging to Williamson, including his car, jewelry, camera, wallet, credit cards, and clothing. Hood had used Williamson?s credit cards, cashed one of Williamson?s business checks, and pawned several pieces of jewelry shortly after the murders.

At the punishment phase of trial, the jury heard that Hood received juvenile probation for breaking into a school and a gun club when he was twelve or thirteen. When Hood was eighteen, he pled guilty to theft and forgery, and was sentenced to two years in the Indiana Department of Corrections, where he was categorized as a problem inmate. Hood was eventually placed on parole for this conviction, but violated his parole when he absconded to Texas with a fifteen-year-old girl.

When Hood was nineteen he entered the relationship with the fifteen-year-old, against the wishes of her parents. When her mother attempted to end the relationship, Hood became enraged; Hood struck and injured his father who tried to intervene. Hood was hostile towards police officers who responded to a disturbance call regarding this altercation. Hood told the officers that he had hit his father because he did not like anyone touching him, and that he had told his father that if he touched him again he would kill him. Hood threatened to kill anyone who tried to touch him.

Hood and the minor continued to secretly see each other after this incident. Hood was violent and abusive towards the girl, and would not allow her to break things off with him. If the girl refused to have sex with him, Hood would force her. In July 1989, the minor ran away with Hood to Texas. After a few months, she was picked up by the police. As her mother was preparing to leave for Texas to retrieve her, Hood called and threatened to kill the mother if she came.

Hood?s former brother-in-law, Dwayne Matthews, testified that he tried to help Hood get a job in Texas but Hood got fired after two months because he did not want to work. Matthews threw Hood out of his home because Hood would not help pay the bills; when Hood left, he stole some equipment that Matthews used in his construction business. Hood was also fired from a job at a Taco Bell ? after working there for only three days ? for fighting.

Evidence was admitted that, while Hood was living at Williamson?s house, Hood raped another fifteen-year-old girl. Hood called the victim shortly after the attack and told her that if she told anyone or if he ever saw her again he would kill her.

Expert witness, Dr. Walter Quijano opined, based upon a hypothetical question comprised of the facts and evidence of Hood?s case, that there was a probability that the subject of the hypothetical would commit criminal acts of violence in the future and would constitute a continuing threat to society. Dr. Quijano also believed that the subject of the hypothetical suffered from an antisocial personality disorder. Another expert, Dr. Richard Coons, was given the same hypothetical and also opined there was a probability that the subject of the hypothetical would commit criminal acts of violence in the future that would constitute a continuing threat to society. Further, the subject of this hypothetical was very unlikely to be rehabilitated.
Link
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,812
49,499
136
Originally posted by: OFFascist
Its good to know this guy will be killed for his crimes.

Not under these circumstances it's not.

Oh about your signature, in the only time socialism and fascism met head on, socialism beat the ever loving shit out of fascism.
 

deepred98

Golden Member
Sep 3, 2005
1,246
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: OFFascist
Its good to know this guy will be killed for his crimes.

Not under these circumstances it's not.

Oh about your signature, in the only time socialism and fascism met head on, socialism beat the ever loving shit out of fascism.

According to that article there is pretty clear evidence he did it so why do these circumstances matter in relation to the perp's fate. I agree that both the judge and prosecuter should be fired/ disbarred but retrying this guy would seem like a waste of money/time no? (unless i'm completely missing something... oh and sorry for making it p&nish)


Oh and Fascism is not cool man.

EDIT: fuck i just realized i've wandered into P&N... backs out slowly
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Originally posted by: deepred98
EDIT: fuck i just realized i've wandered into P&N... backs out slowly

lmao. Just put on the thick skin and be amazed.

This guy seems to be a bad person but I think he should be locked up for life. Its just cheaper then killing them. If killing was cheaper then we could do that I guess but its not.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,576
7,637
136
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: OFFascist
Its good to know this guy will be killed for his crimes.

Not under these circumstances it's not.

Given the evidence stated in the article, the man on death row should have been killed long ago. Nothing short of evidence for his innocence should stand in the way.

Letting us pay for him for so long should be criminal in itself. End it. To prolong it is unjustified.

I appreciate the gravity of the betrayal of law the judge and prosecutor committed. They should be disbarred, possibly fined, and most certainly have every case checked twice, but this is not such a case.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,576
7,637
136
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: deepred98
EDIT: fuck i just realized i've wandered into P&N... backs out slowly

lmao. Just put on the thick skin and be amazed.

This guy seems to be a bad person but I think he should be locked up for life. Its just cheaper then killing them. If killing was cheaper then we could do that I guess but its not.

At this point they've already gone through the legal costs of his death sentence, have they not? His crime was 20 years ago.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: OFFascist
Its good to know this guy will be killed for his crimes.

Not under these circumstances it's not.

Given the evidence stated in the article, the man on death row should have been killed long ago. Nothing short of evidence for his innocence should stand in the way.

Letting us pay for him for so long should be criminal in itself. End it. To prolong it is unjustified.

I appreciate the gravity of the betrayal of law the judge and prosecutor committed. They should be disbarred, possibly fined, and most certainly have every case checked twice, but this is not such a case.

any check of this case will likely result in the same result, there is not ppoint in not having another look, if only for precedent's sake.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
I really would like to know who here thinks, based on the facts, that the jury was probably going to set Hood free were it not for the Judge.

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: OFFascist
Its good to know this guy will be killed for his crimes.

Not under these circumstances it's not.

Given the evidence stated in the article, the man on death row should have been killed long ago. Nothing short of evidence for his innocence should stand in the way.

Letting us pay for him for so long should be criminal in itself. End it. To prolong it is unjustified.

I appreciate the gravity of the betrayal of law the judge and prosecutor committed. They should be disbarred, possibly fined, and most certainly have every case checked twice, but this is not such a case.


Completely agree.. but one thing I feel.. but not certain yet.. is.. if their relationship EVER tainted an innocent citizens case.. then they should be hanged
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: daveymark
I really would like to know who here thinks, based on the facts, that the jury was probably going to set Hood free were it not for the Judge.


You completely miss the point. You would just change the rules to say that judges sleeping with prosecutors is only not ok for innocent defendants? And you would enforce it how?
 

FaaR

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2007
1,056
412
136
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Given the evidence stated in the article, the man on death row should have been killed long ago. Nothing short of evidence for his innocence should stand in the way.
People like this guy live for no other reason than to steal from, and abuse other people. That's what they love to do.

The ultimate punishment is not killing them, it's taking away from them that which they most want to do, ie, abuse their surroundings.

Besides, even amongst some of the most obviously guilty death row convicts have there been innocents, which simply put is reason enough not to kill anyone in the name of justice.

You can free an innocent man from prison...but how do you free an innocent man from death after he's been executed?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,812
49,499
136
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: OFFascist
Its good to know this guy will be killed for his crimes.

Not under these circumstances it's not.

Given the evidence stated in the article, the man on death row should have been killed long ago. Nothing short of evidence for his innocence should stand in the way.

Letting us pay for him for so long should be criminal in itself. End it. To prolong it is unjustified.

I appreciate the gravity of the betrayal of law the judge and prosecutor committed. They should be disbarred, possibly fined, and most certainly have every case checked twice, but this is not such a case.

That's not how our justice system tends to work though. When police/prosecutors engage in unethical conduct or violate a defendant's rights (as I think is pretty indisputable in this case), generally the way the government is punished is through dismissal of their claims. If you are apprehended with evidence that proves you committed a robbery through a search that violates the 4th amendment, you walk free no matter how guilty you are.

I'm not calling for that in this case, but at the very minimum his death sentence should be vacated. I guess it helps that I believe the death penalty to be a waste of time and money anyway, but regardless of that abuse of police and prosecutorial positions should not be tolerated.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: OFFascist
Its good to know this guy will be killed for his crimes.

Not under these circumstances it's not.

Given the evidence stated in the article, the man on death row should have been killed long ago. Nothing short of evidence for his innocence should stand in the way.

Letting us pay for him for so long should be criminal in itself. End it. To prolong it is unjustified.

I appreciate the gravity of the betrayal of law the judge and prosecutor committed. They should be disbarred, possibly fined, and most certainly have every case checked twice, but this is not such a case.

That's not how our justice system tends to work though. When police/prosecutors engage in unethical conduct or violate a defendant's rights (as I think is pretty indisputable in this case), generally the way the government is punished is through dismissal of their claims. If you are apprehended with evidence that proves you committed a robbery through a search that violates the 4th amendment, you walk free no matter how guilty you are.

I'm not calling for that in this case, but at the very minimum his death sentence should be vacated. I guess it helps that I believe the death penalty to be a waste of time and money anyway, but regardless of that abuse of police and prosecutorial positions should not be tolerated.

When it involves evidence, it's typically exluded - any less invites the bad behavior.

When it involves misconduct, it usually means a mitrial, rather than a dismissal, IIUC.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: OFFascist
Its good to know this guy will be killed for his crimes.

Not under these circumstances it's not.

Given the evidence stated in the article, the man on death row should have been killed long ago. Nothing short of evidence for his innocence should stand in the way.

Letting us pay for him for so long should be criminal in itself. End it. To prolong it is unjustified.

I appreciate the gravity of the betrayal of law the judge and prosecutor committed. They should be disbarred, possibly fined, and most certainly have every case checked twice, but this is not such a case.

That's not how our justice system tends to work though. When police/prosecutors engage in unethical conduct or violate a defendant's rights (as I think is pretty indisputable in this case), generally the way the government is punished is through dismissal of their claims. If you are apprehended with evidence that proves you committed a robbery through a search that violates the 4th amendment, you walk free no matter how guilty you are.

I'm not calling for that in this case, but at the very minimum his death sentence should be vacated. I guess it helps that I believe the death penalty to be a waste of time and money anyway, but regardless of that abuse of police and prosecutorial positions should not be tolerated.

You're ignoring the longstanding harmless error doctrine. Check out a case like Arizona v. Fulminante for a good discussion of it. Generally, the defendant doesn't just have to show that some sort of error was made at the trial level - he also has to show the error had an effect on the original decision at trial. While it's quite clear the judge and prosecutor were engaged in an improper relationship, the evidence appears to have been so overwhelming in the present case that the appeals court found the result would have been the same regardless.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,812
49,499
136
Originally posted by: Mursilis

You're ignoring the longstanding harmless error doctrine. Check out a case like Arizona v. Fulminante for a good discussion of it. Generally, the defendant doesn't just have to show that some sort of error was made at the trial level - he also has to show the error had an effect on the original decision at trial. While it's quite clear the judge and prosecutor were engaged in an improper relationship, the evidence appears to have been so overwhelming in the present case that the appeals court found the result would have been the same regardless.

While I can't check up on that now, does the appearance of impropriety not have an effect on it? (honest question)
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Mursilis

You're ignoring the longstanding harmless error doctrine. Check out a case like Arizona v. Fulminante for a good discussion of it. Generally, the defendant doesn't just have to show that some sort of error was made at the trial level - he also has to show the error had an effect on the original decision at trial. While it's quite clear the judge and prosecutor were engaged in an improper relationship, the evidence appears to have been so overwhelming in the present case that the appeals court found the result would have been the same regardless.

While I can't check up on that now, does the appearance of impropriety not have an effect on it? (honest question)

Here's a quick summary from West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

The legal doctrine of harmless error is found in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, extensive case law, and state statutes. It comes into use when a litigant appeals the decision of a judge or jury, arguing that an error of law was made at trial that resulted in an incorrect decision or verdict. The appellate court then must decide whether the error was serious enough to strike down the decision made at trial. Review for harmless error involves a complicated test that applies to state and federal laws as well as rules of procedure. If an error is held to be serious, the appellate court is likely to set aside the decision of the trial court and may order a new trial. If it deems the error harmless, the appellate court affirms the lower court's decision. The doctrine of harmless error thus prevents an unnecessary new trial when the error alleged would not have affected the outcome at trial.

Essentially, it's a two-pronged test most appeals courts will apply. First, was error committed at trial? In the present case, yes, because the improper relationship between the judge and the prosecutor meant at least one of them should've recused themselves from involvement in the trial. Second, was the error sufficiently serious to overturn the verdict at trial? In the present case, that's harder - on the one hand, the evidence appeared to be overwhelming, so it's very likely the result would've been the same, but on the other hand, we're talking about a basic right (right to a fair trial) being compromised here, so it's a tough call. I'd like to see the defendant's lawyers take this issue to the federal level.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,425
8,388
126
that's not the texas supreme court. no, it's the laughing-stock court of criminal appeals.

edit: what mursilis said

edit2: while what mursilis said is right, it wasn't quite the grounds this guy was denied on. however, the habeas statute, section 5(a) requires the applicant to make a showing '(2) by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; or (3) by clear and convincing evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution no rational juror would have answered in the state's favor one or more of the special issues that were submitted to the jury in the applicant's trial under Article 37.071 or 37.0711.'

so, basically, he had to show that either the weight of the evidence is that no rational juror could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or he had to show by some pretty good evidence that no rational juror would have given him death.


here's the order
Applicant makes one allegation in the instant subsequent application: that he was denied a fair trial because of a romantic relationship between the trial judge and the prosecutor. On November 19, 2008, we remanded this cause and ordered the trial court to gather evidence and make recommendations on two issues: (1) whether the doctrine of laches bars the consideration of Applicant's claim; and, (2) whether Applicant meets the dictates of Article 11.071, § 5. We have reviewed the application and the trial court's recommendations. We find that the allegation fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a). Accordingly, the application is dismissed as an abuse of the writ.
so, by the court's opinion, it was the failure to satisfy what i've laid out above, not the state's laches claim, which is what the article and the OP seem to claim as the basis.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: OFFascist
Its good to know this guy will be killed for his crimes.

Not under these circumstances it's not.

Given the evidence stated in the article, the man on death row should have been killed long ago. Nothing short of evidence for his innocence should stand in the way.

Letting us pay for him for so long should be criminal in itself. End it. To prolong it is unjustified.

I appreciate the gravity of the betrayal of law the judge and prosecutor committed. They should be disbarred, possibly fined, and most certainly have every case checked twice, but this is not such a case.

That's not how our justice system tends to work though. When police/prosecutors engage in unethical conduct or violate a defendant's rights (as I think is pretty indisputable in this case), generally the way the government is punished is through dismissal of their claims. If you are apprehended with evidence that proves you committed a robbery through a search that violates the 4th amendment, you walk free no matter how guilty you are.

I'm not calling for that in this case, but at the very minimum his death sentence should be vacated. I guess it helps that I believe the death penalty to be a waste of time and money anyway, but regardless of that abuse of police and prosecutorial positions should not be tolerated.

The reason the charges based on an illegal search are vacated is that if there had not been that illegal search, there would not be charges. If the charges are supported by other evidence not part of the illegal search, the person can still be punished just the same.

The question in this case is: did the misconduct impact the outcome of the trial. If not, then the judgement should stand. The judge and prosecutor should be charged with offenses for their conduct (IMO), but the guy should fry.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: PokerGuy.

The question in this case is: did the misconduct impact the outcome of the trial. If not, then the judgement should stand. The judge and prosecutor should be charged with offenses for their conduct (IMO), but the guy should fry.

Except that's not the question in this case. Did you read the link? It appears not.

The Supreme Court upheld the ruling 6-3, that the issue was that the affair wasn't raised earlier. But the article explanis why they couldn't raise it earlier.

As for the remedy:

A score of legal ethicists concluded that the participation of the two at Hood's trial was unethical, unprofessional and unconstitutional, and the legal basis for a new trial self-evident.

There's more in the links, including a lot more conflicts of interest.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the Supreme Court did not uphold the ruling.

OK, let's go through the detail that shows that the substance of what I said is correct and that you are raising a technicality that's misleading.

The article says that Texas' highest court upheld the ruling. Well then, doesn't that mean the Supreme Court ruling you might ask.

Not exactly - Texas is weird, as Wikipedia explains:

In Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals has final jurisdiction over all criminal matters (excluding juvenile proceedings, which are considered civil matters), while the Texas Supreme Court is the last word on all civil matters including juvenile proceedings even if a criminal act is involved.

So, the top court in Texas for criminal appeals has a name other than Supreme Court, while their Supreme Court is only the top court for *civil* cases.

So, the top court - which most readers would think of as the 'Supreme Court' , though that's not the formal name - upheld the ruling.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |