Judge in Texas is on trial

[kibbles]

I don't think it's about vengeance; but, if the judge didn't respect someone else's civil rights (whether they had been proven guilty or not), she should not be shocked when hers are not respected.

For the record, I think everyone's should be respected (even hers); but, I think she should be held accountable for her mistake.

Is there an update in the trial?

[Nyoibo]

doesn't matter. in a properly administered justice system, each case should be tried on its own merits, and any previous convictions or allegations shouldn't even come into play.

I can't believe I actually read that, so you would let a serial rapist loose because you would only try them on that particular rape? So 3 years for rape, gets out, rapes again, 3 more years, gets out rapes again, 3 more years, ect. That's basically what you're advocating, don't let prior history come into it, only charge them on that particular crime and ignore a propensity to re-offend?

[Slytovhand]

GAH!!! Nyoibo's in my head again!!!!

Anyway, other than that... what, exact, legal right was being infringed upon??? The same ones that allow a decidedly guilty person walk free because of a typo on an arrest warrant or Search and Seizure?

Actually, no. The hours were 9-5 (or whatever), they wanted them extended. Sorry, but just because you're actually imposing the correct times is not a 'legal' issue. And, for that matter, it's about not bending over backwards for someone! And that's what's being argued here - that the judge, somehow, had a legal responsibility to bend over backwards for a convicted criminal.. how does that become an illegal act??

What, will next we find police being sued because they..OMG... issued a ticket to a speeder?? Or actually arrested a drunk driver????


(donchya just love slippery slopes?? I loved playing on them as a kid )

[linguist]

I can't believe I actually read that, so you would let a serial rapist loose because you would only try them on that particular rape? So 3 years for rape, gets out, rapes again, 3 more years, gets out rapes again, 3 more years, ect. That's basically what you're advocating, don't let prior history come into it, only charge them on that particular crime and ignore a propensity to re-offend?

what i'm advocating is that prejudicial information regarding previous arrests, convictions, and allegations be kept from juries. it keeps the jury from saying "this person must be guilty of *this* crime, because they did it before." once a conviction has been obtained, the judge can then use history in consideration of sentencing.

sue. And, for that matter, it's about not bending over backwards for someone! And that's what's being argued here - that the judge, somehow, had a legal responsibility to bend over backwards for a convicted criminal.. how does that become an illegal act??

i can't speak to the legality, though it is certainly unethical, and there have been cases of ethics violations in public servants being legally prosecuted.

as a sitting judge, it is her responsibility to keep herself apprised of any upcoming supreme court decisions which may affect sentencing or previous convictions. i find it very unlikely that she knew nothing of the decision regarding the constitutionality of lethal injection. given that, this situation smacks of a judge that, at best, was unaware of the impending decision, making her incompetent and unfit to serve, and at worst denied the request in order to make sure that this man was good and dead before the court had a chance to hand down a decision which may have stayed his execution.

[DesignFox]

The lawyers were supposed to file any such paperwork 48 hours ahead of time.

They didn't file the papers on time.

I still don't think this is the judge's fault, and I certainly don't think it's her legal responsibility to stay past the closing of the offices.

The article also stated that there were two judges who would have been willing to stay. Did anybody contact either of them? Nooooo....

And he was a repeat offender. My heart can only bleed for so many.

[Greenday]

what i'm advocating is that prejudicial information regarding previous arrests, convictions, and allegations be kept from juries. it keeps the jury from saying "this person must be guilty of *this* crime, because they did it before." once a conviction has been obtained, the judge can then use history in consideration of sentencing.

It doesn't. Unless it is DIRECTLY linked to the specific case at hand, previous convictions are strictly forbidden from being brought up in criminal cases. There's the whole probative vs. prejudicial value thing, and if the prejudicial value of a fact is much greater than the probative value, it is not allowed.

I dunno, I'm just still seeing legally, what the judge in question did wrong?

[Slytovhand]

Umm... if 'character references' are part of a trial and are heard by a jury, why on earth isn't past criminal history???

"This person is a great and wonderful person who helps out the homeless, and helps with food runs"... so they can kidnap, rape and murder them, as they've done in the past...

[Greenday]

Umm... if 'character references' are part of a trial and are heard by a jury, why on earth isn't past criminal history???

"This person is a great and wonderful person who helps out the homeless, and helps with food runs"... so they can kidnap, rape and murder them, as they've done in the past...

Cause what happens when you get someone who, let's say, commit multiple robberies in his past and gets charged with another robbery which he is actually innocent of? If the prosecution knew he had been previously found guilty multiple times of robbery, do you think there'd be even a slight chance he'd get a fair trial?

[Slytovhand]

Yeah, I did think of that as well....

(tbh, I've still got my 'ebay' post running through my head....).

But, if you're looking for 'reasonable doubt', there's more 'reasonable doubt' when a person already has a history of such things, than if they have a blank slate - yes?

Of course, I'm also expecting a lot more than mere circumstantial evidence from the prosecution as well..... perhaps I'm just naive

[Boozy]

Umm... if 'character references' are part of a trial and are heard by a jury, why on earth isn't past criminal history???

You are confusing the trial with the sentencing.

In a trial, past offences are not usually allowed into evidence (although there are exceptions).

In the sentencing phase, held after a verdict has been reached, past convictions and character references are the main course.

[DrFaroohk]

I'm no lawyer, but in every TV lawyer show I've seen, one of the main reasons the defendant never takes the stand is that once that happens they CAN bring in his past offenses.

[Pedersen]

That might be the case for tv courtrooms, but for real life courtrooms the reason is very different. Lawyers are trained interrogators. They can (and will) manage to make something utterly innocuous look bad. And if they can't do that, they can (and will) manage to get you to say something that, on the surface, looks like an apparent contradiction. And once that happens, your credibility is shot, and your successful defense becomes much much harder.

If you're the defendant, you don't want to be on the stand trying to figure out how the prosecutor is trying to trick you into saying something that looks bad. You want your lawyer doing that to the prosecution's witnesses. You want to stay out of it as much as possible.

[BlaqueKatt]

just found this, interesting-apparently this isn't the first case she's mishandled-maybe that's why she's on trial.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was known for upholding convictions even when overwhelming exculpatory evidence came to light. In 1997, DNA testing proved that sperm collected from a rape victim did not match Roy Criner, who had been sentenced to ninety-nine years for the crime. Two lower courts recommended that the verdict be overturned, but the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld it, arguing that Criner might have worn a condom or might not have ejaculated. Sharon Keller, who is now the presiding judge on the court, stated in a majority opinion, “The new evidence does not establish innocence.” In 2000, then Governor George W. Bush pardoned Criner.

[kibbles]

Yeah, I think she should be in jail. If she has a history of ignoring evidence, then she should be punished for it.

[Greenday]

Yeah, I think she should be in jail. If she has a history of ignoring evidence, then she should be punished for it.

Except in that case, the evidence doesn't say it wasn't him, it just says she's had sex before with another guy. He easily could have just worn a condom and wouldn't leave any sperm.