Judge in Texas is on trial

[BlaqueKatt]

Except in that case, the evidence doesn't say it wasn't him, it just says she's had sex before with another guy.

nope- The DNA evidence also disproved an alternate theory of the evidence put forward by the prosecution and Judge Keller of the Court of Criminal Appeals: Deanna Ogg did not have consensual sex with anyone in the immediate period prior to the crime. The state's case against Criner could no longer stand.

it's not just that case-
requoted for you

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was known for upholding convictions even when overwhelming exculpatory evidence came to light.

actually from the innocence project's case history-

In 1990, Criner was convicted of raping and murdering Ogg based on his alleged statements and improper forensic testimony. A forensic analyst testified that serology testing on semen from vaginal and rectal specimens showed blood groups matching both Criner and the victim. He said Criner and 40% of men matched the sample and could have been the perpetrator. This testimony was incorrect, however, because when testing does not detect blood group substance or enzymes foreign to the victim, no potential semen donor can be excluded because the victim’s blood group markers could be “masking” the perpetrator’s. In Criner's case, the failure to inform the jury that 100% of the male population could be included and that none can be excluded was highly misleading.

She upheld the conviction based on-things NOT PRESENTED AT TRIAL-She basically retried the case and added things to fit the new evidence which is not allowed.

Texas appellate court judged this insufficient evidence to prove his innocence because he could have been wearing a condom or failed to ejaculate, though these scenarios had never been presented. Judge Sharon Keller said that the semen could have resulted from consensual sex prior to the killing, though this theory, as well, had never been presented.


And Judge Keller's interview about her decision-she claimed that DNA evidence would not have affected the jury's decision at all.

Reporter-"So it comes down to his statements to his friends?"*
Judge Keller-"Essentially, his confessions were the evidence against him. . . That was essentially what he was convicted on. If a person confesses to a crime, the conviction should be affirmed on appeal if there's corroborating evidence that the crime actually occurred. So, yes, that's sufficient evidence on appeal. . "

*his "confessions" were that he picked a girl up and "got rough with her" after work-however the prosecution's timeline of the crime have the victim raped and murdered while crier was at work-his "confessions" are heresay.

Hearsay is a legal term referring to the use of out of court statements as evidence.

Unless one of the many exceptions applies, hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States.

[Nyoibo]

[B]Sharon Keller, who is now the presiding judge on the court, stated in a majority opinion

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

Majority opinion, does that mean more than one judge? 'cause no ones looking to lynch the others one.

Being a judge is not an easy task, judges are still human and make mistakes and what a judge hears is more than the general public hears through the media, but of course everyone knows exactly what was presented in the trial don't they?

[BlaqueKatt]

Majority opinion, does that mean more than one judge?

yup 5 to four-however she was the one that chose to write the decision, and the one that granted the interview justifying the fact that she ignored evidence.

what a judge hears is more than the general public hears through the media, but of course everyone knows exactly what was presented in the trial don't they?

her only job was to decide if he should be granted a new trial based on new evidence (and the fact that the forensic witness for the state out and out lied at his first trial) as TWO other courts had decided his conviction should be overturned-She decided two other courts that had reviewed the case were wrong because of heresay(his supposed confession).

and in her interview she contradicts herself-

When you look at new evidence, you look at it to see whether it would have made a difference in their verdict. If it would, he gets a new trial. If it wouldn't, then he doesn't.

At best, he established that he might be innocent. We can't give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent.

At best, he made some people think that he might be innocent.



and that is what is referred to as "reasonable doubt"-as he may have convinced the original or subsequent jurors.


When new evidence comes up after trial that might instill reasonable doubt as to a person's guilt-they deserve a new trial-Judge Keller thinks a jury's conviction without all the evidence is sufficient.


She decided that what someone "supposedly" told someone else is more damning than physical evidence-how can you have a fair trial without all the evidence being presented, and with some evidence presented falsely(remember the forensic expert lied)

[Slytovhand]

Sounds like the 'justice' system at work, to me!

[DesignFox]

Well, if she has mishandled cases in the past, then she should no longer be a judge.

I still don't think the case in OP is anything to cry about.

But I agree that repeat screw-ups are grounds for firing. Especially from the sounds of the Crier case. That's just out and out total ass-hattery.

[Nyoibo]

The other case doesn't really count as there were 4 other judges involved.

[Greenday]

I'm still going to say that the judge's belief that the defendant could have just used a condom and that's why his DNA wasn't there. Lack of DNA doesn't prove he didn't do it. While I think most people would think that, I think she just went ahead and used her own expertise in dealing with this matter so a new jury couldn't screw it up because lack of experience with this. Look, rapists have been known to use condoms and to shave their pubes to make it easier to get away with. Using a condom means unless it breaks, the rapist isn't leaving any fluids in the victim and shaving pubes would mean none of the rapist's hairs would be left on the victim so no DNA. Most people would never analyze it that far and would just think DNA is the end all, be all. Time has proven that's not true. Now, if DNA IS found, then yes, that greatly increases the chances of being guilty. But lack of DNA just doesn't mean innocent.

[kibbles]

But even if someone is guilty, if it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then no judge should be able to put someone in jail. I know it's not a perfect system and many guilty people get away with stuff; but, having things proven beyond a resonable doubt was always the point of the legal system and prevents dangerous precedents where it is highly likely innocent people would be jailed. JMO.

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm still going to say that the judge's belief that the defendant could have just used a condom and that's why his DNA wasn't there. Lack of DNA doesn't prove he didn't do it.

read the entire report-the only reason he was ever even arrested and charged was because he supposedly told some friends he "picked up a girl for sex and got rough with her" after work-he was at work at the time of the rape/murder.

Judge Keller said his statements, which are considered heresay, were what convicted him, not the forensic expert lying on the stand(expert said he was a blood type match-however the test used could not have excluded anyone-heck you were a match in the test they used-as it included 100% of the male population and excluded no one)-statements that can't be proven he even said. She also claimed there was no way two girls were going to visit their grandmothers in the same town* on the same night(the victim and the girl mr crier dropped off at her grandmothers house)

*town in question has a population of 17,189 with 1,306 over the age of 65-statistically it's quite possible.