Texas' highest criminal court's latest dismaying ruling in the scandalous Charles Dean Hood murder case can be interpreted with five words: "Anything goes in Texas justice."
The ruling somehow manages to waltz past the fact that Collin County's trial judge in the capital murder case had been cavorting in bed with the district attorney. Instead, the split decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals turned on a procedural issue in letting the death penalty verdict stand against Hood.
The clearly compromised impartiality of the trial judge, Verla Sue Holland, thus is rendered legally beside the point, in contravention of the Texas Constitution.
This is not a plea to save the life of a man who may be innocent of the charges against him. Indeed, the state produced overwhelming evidence against Hood in the cold robbery and murder of Ronald Williamson and Tracie Lynn Wallace in Plano.
Rather, the issue is the integrity of the Texas court system and the appeals court's interest in flushing out the stench of corrupted justice. Sadly, the court has proved itself unwilling.
Hood was hours away from execution in June 2008 as judges in McKinney and Austin played hot potato with newly presented assertions about a secret tryst. Prosecutors argued that there had been ample time to complain about an affair, if there was one.
State District Judge Greg Brewer thought it was important to find out if there had been, and he ordered Judge Holland and former District Attorney Tom O'Connell to cop to the truth. It was ugly. The couple admitted under oath that they had indeed concealed a past intimate relationship at the time of the 1990 trial, in which he argued before her in open court.
Judge Brewer was rightfully disturbed and concluded later that the state's "hands are unclean" and that Hood should be able to pursue the complaint about compromised justice.
In an affront to the sense of fair play, the appeals court bought the argument that it was too late to bring up the affair. If there's any cause for optimism, we find it in the fact that 3 of the 9 judges disagreed with the majority and would have allowed the complaint to be considered.
A trial involving a nasty little secret between judge and prosecutor cannot produce justice. It's a stacked deck. The Texas Constitution guarantees fairness out of Texas courts, and it's a travesty that the state's highest criminal court doesn't see it.
The ruling somehow manages to waltz past the fact that Collin County's trial judge in the capital murder case had been cavorting in bed with the district attorney. Instead, the split decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals turned on a procedural issue in letting the death penalty verdict stand against Hood.
The clearly compromised impartiality of the trial judge, Verla Sue Holland, thus is rendered legally beside the point, in contravention of the Texas Constitution.
This is not a plea to save the life of a man who may be innocent of the charges against him. Indeed, the state produced overwhelming evidence against Hood in the cold robbery and murder of Ronald Williamson and Tracie Lynn Wallace in Plano.
Rather, the issue is the integrity of the Texas court system and the appeals court's interest in flushing out the stench of corrupted justice. Sadly, the court has proved itself unwilling.
Hood was hours away from execution in June 2008 as judges in McKinney and Austin played hot potato with newly presented assertions about a secret tryst. Prosecutors argued that there had been ample time to complain about an affair, if there was one.
State District Judge Greg Brewer thought it was important to find out if there had been, and he ordered Judge Holland and former District Attorney Tom O'Connell to cop to the truth. It was ugly. The couple admitted under oath that they had indeed concealed a past intimate relationship at the time of the 1990 trial, in which he argued before her in open court.
Judge Brewer was rightfully disturbed and concluded later that the state's "hands are unclean" and that Hood should be able to pursue the complaint about compromised justice.
In an affront to the sense of fair play, the appeals court bought the argument that it was too late to bring up the affair. If there's any cause for optimism, we find it in the fact that 3 of the 9 judges disagreed with the majority and would have allowed the complaint to be considered.
A trial involving a nasty little secret between judge and prosecutor cannot produce justice. It's a stacked deck. The Texas Constitution guarantees fairness out of Texas courts, and it's a travesty that the state's highest criminal court doesn't see it.
Prosecutors argue that the defense attorneys brought up the unfair-trial argument too late. But 3 justices did not buy that argument. An excerpt from their opinion:
"Here, it is clear that applicant's trial attorneys were aware, before the 1990 trial, of the 'common knowledge' rumors and gossip concerning the personal relationship, but is seems equally clear from the habeas record that applicant's attorneys did not know whether those rumors were true, either at the time of the trial or at the time that applicant filed his earlier habeas applications."
Source: Editorial, Dallas Morning News, Sept. 18, 2009
Comments
Post a Comment
Offensive pro-DP comments will not be published.