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

[ElFenix]

it's important because the court of criminal appeals is a well-known embarrassment. furthermore, the article says over and over again Court of Criminal Appeals or CCA. so anyone who bothered reading it would know that it wasn't the Texas Supreme Court. of course, anyone who was really interested would want to know exactly what said Court of Criminal Appeals wrote, wouldn't they? i'm not entirely certain the author of the article was, considering they latch onto the laches issue instead of the 11.071 issue.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
it's important because the court of criminal appeals is a well-known embarrassment.

So, you agree with the thread's theme.

furthermore, the article says over and over again Court of Criminal Appeals or CCA. so anyone who bothered reading it would know that it wasn't the Texas Supreme Court. of course, anyone who was really interested would want to know exactly what said Court of Criminal Appeals wrote, wouldn't they? i'm not entirely certain the author of the article was, considering they latch onto the laches issue instead of the 11.071 issue.

You must be new here. Expecting people to get the finer points of the weird Texas court structure? I have a hard enough time gettijng them to agree Obama is President.

But I'll edit the title to 'Top Texas Court', to try to get the best of both worlds.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ElFenix
it's important because the court of criminal appeals is a well-known embarrassment.

So, you agree with the thread's theme.

they should be embarassed for when it's due, however, there are multiple ways of reading the statute and it could be *ground1* and (*ground2* or *ground3*). or it could be *ground1* or *ground2* or *ground3*. there is an 'or' between ground2 and ground3, but there is neither an 'and' nor an 'or' between *ground1* and *ground2*. depending on how that's read, they're either embarrassing themselves yet again or they're following the statute. i'm not at all certain how to read it anymore as i've argued similar statutes both ways before and don't remember how it turned out. general english rules would mean the second interpretation, and not the first, iirc (been so long since i've taken proper writing class).

In addition, the CCA's presiding judge, Sharon Keller, who has described herself as a "prosecution-oriented person," was tried in August before the State Commission on Judicial Conduct on five counts of judicial misconduct, including violations of due process in another death case in 2007. Advised by her staff that lawyers for death-row inmate Michael Richard -- scheduled to be executed that night -- needed an extra 15 minutes to file a final appeal, Keller had replied, "We close at 5." Richard was executed that night without having his appeal heard by the CCA. The outcome of Keller's misconduct proceeding should be announced soon.

i really hope she's disbarred for that. unfortunately she can't be sentenced to jail for judicial misconduct, afaik

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Craig234

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?

I wouldnt change the rules. this is an extreme circumstance and must be an accepted loss in order for the judicial system as a whole to function properly. By "loss" I mean this guy gets a retrial and has his life extended a few more years.

More importantly, the judicial branch needs to take a clue from the other 2 branches. Stick to interns, not colleagues.

 

[Double Trouble]

Wow, that seems like a crazy ruling by the CCA..... but then again, they have a history of some pretty nutty stuff. Clearly what the judge and prosecutor did was misconduct (I wonder if anything will come of it).

What amazes me is not that they let the ruling stand -- that part I agree with. What amazes me is that they basically ruled that 1) the defendant had to bring it up earlier, even though he couldn't because he didn't have hard evidence, and 2) even if he had brought it up, the bar for "proving" the misconduct was set incredibly high (ie, impossible to reach). That's crazy.

I have no problem with the verdict itself being upheld, if the court believes the misconduct didn't impact the outcome of the trial, but that's not what the ruling was. Scary stuff man.....

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Craig234

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?

I wouldnt change the rules. this is an extreme circumstance and must be an accepted loss in order for the judicial system as a whole to function properly. By "loss" I mean this guy gets a retrial and has his life extended a few more years.

More importantly, the judicial branch needs to take a clue from the other 2 branches. Stick to interns, not colleagues.

Thanks for clarifying, sounds like we pretty much agree. I thought making the issue whether he was guilty misses the point, but now you addressed the main topic.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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)

The fact that the prosecutor and judge wer efucking doesn't change the facts of the case that were presented and led a JURY to convict the guy.

Fry him.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

There's a point at which common sense must prevail. In this case, I don't think it matters a lick that the prosecutor and judge were having an affair. Any jury hearing that set of facts would convict. What justice will be served by holding a retrial for a case which is guaranteed to end in a conviction every single time it comes before a jury? All it does is cost taxpayers more money. This guy had his day in court, so it's not like justice hasn't been served. But seeing as how the relationship between the prosecutor and judge was 100 percent immaterial when the jury considered the facts, a retrial is unnecessary. Common sense.

The prosecutor and judge should face some pretty stiff penalties for maintaining a secret affair however. Regardless of this case, how many other cases may this have reasonably impacted? That's an unacceptable breach of the public trust and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

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)

The fact that the prosecutor and judge wer efucking doesn't change the facts of the case that were presented and led a JURY to convict the guy.

Fry him.

Doesn't matter. As much as you and I both think the guy is probably guilty and deserves to fry, he also deserves another trial due to the judicial misconduct.
If the evidence is that strong then it won't take much for a second jury to convict him again.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
There's a point at which common sense must prevail. In this case, I don't think it matters a lick that the prosecutor and judge were having an affair. Any jury hearing that set of facts would convict. What justice will be served by holding a retrial for a case which is guaranteed to end in a conviction every single time it comes before a jury? All it does is cost taxpayers more money. This guy had his day in court, so it's not like justice hasn't been served. But seeing as how the relationship between the prosecutor and judge was 100 percent immaterial when the jury considered the facts, a retrial is unnecessary. Common sense.

The prosecutor and judge should face some pretty stiff penalties for maintaining a secret affair however. Regardless of this case, how many other cases may this have reasonably impacted? That's an unacceptable breach of the public trust and should be dealt with accordingly.

I agree with you regarding common sense and all, but that's NOT what the court ruled on. If the court ruled on the issue of the trial itself, whether the misconduct affected the outcome etc, that would be fine... but they didn't. Their ruling focused on whether / when / how the defense was supposed to bring up the misconduct. The burden of proof they set on the defense -- essentially having first hand eye witnesses to the misconduct -- sets the bar so high as to essentially make it impossible for the defense to use judicial misconduct to gain a retrial.

An absurd ruling, to be sure.

 

[YoungGun21]

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.

Cheaper to keep them locked up for life? Are you kidding? Please be kidding.

It is most certainly cheaper to use the death penalty.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Doesn't matter. As much as you and I both think the guy is probably guilty and deserves to fry, he also deserves another trial due to the judicial misconduct.
If the evidence is that strong then it won't take much for a second jury to convict him again.

Could you clarify your point here? Are you saying that any judicial misconduct (no matter how minor) warrants granting the defendant a new trial? Or are you just saying that this particular instance of judicial misconduct was so egregious that a new trial is warranted?

And if it's the former, then do you also argue that any error at the trial level (regardless of how serious) also warrants a new trial?