A death row inmate in Texas does not deserve a new trial even though the judge in his case was having an affair with the prosecutor, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.Charles Dean Hood was granted a last-minute reprieve in June 2008 when a former district attorney came forward to confirm long-rumored reports of the affair. The judge and prosecutor later admitted to the secret affair under oath.
In a 6-3 opinion, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Hood's request on the basis that his defense team did not raise the issue in their initial appeal despite the fact that they were aware of the rumors.
"Accordingly, the application is dismissed as an abuse of the writ," the court ruled.
To me, that sounds like Mr. Hood got the shaft. What do you think? Does it mean that if they had raised this objection in the first appeal, a new trial would be allowed? Sounds like the Lone Star State is getting off on a technicality. The only problem is we're talking about a Capital case in which a man's life is on the line.
Wouldn't it be more to the point to examine the decisions made during the trial to see if the judge and prosecutor lovers had teamed up in some way to the detriment of the defendant? Nevertheless, I'd say in a death penalty case, no shadow of impropriety can be allowed.
Here's what I had to say about the case before.
The man should have a new trial. And Judge Holland and Prosecutor O'Connell should be disciplined.
What's your opinion? For a proper analysis of the case go to Talk Left.
I'd say in a death penalty case, no shadow of impropriety can be allowed.
ReplyDeleteThis time, I have to agree with you, as traumatic as that is (probably for both of us) ;).
I'm also troubled by this attempted execution, and the fact that they plan to try again next week.
beowulf, You're agreeing with me has thrown me into a crisis of PTSD. Don't do it too often.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Mikeb--I'm going to have to traumatize us both a bit more, and expand on the excellent point you made:
ReplyDeleteDoes it mean that if they had raised this objection in the first appeal, a new trial would be allowed? Sounds like the Lone Star State is getting off on a technicality.
Taken further, if having raised the objection earlier would indeed have made the difference (as the article seems to imply), wouldn't the defense counsel's failure to raise the objection in a timely manner constitute incompetent legal representation? Is that, in itself, not grounds for declaration of mistrial? If not, it would seem to me that Hood's eventual execution will be, at least in part, for the "crime" of not having a good enough legal team. That's not, as far as I know, supposed to be a capital offense.
If, on the other hand, there is, in the Texas legal code, no concrete, explicitly expressed requirement for the objection to have been raised on the first appeal (and the lack of such an explicitly stated requirement would be the only excuse I can think of for the defense not to have made the objection earlier), it would seem that the appeals court is simply making up the rules on the fly, in furtherance of a predetermined outcome.
I'm all for law and order, but that means I demand that the prosecution and justice system be held to strict accountability, as well.
Let's not forget this obvious problem with the Court's ruling: they ruled against the defense because the defense didn't make an issue earlier out of the secret affair between the judge and the DA? The affair that the judge and the DA hid? Denied, even? Seems a little harsh to expect the defense to make an issue out of a conflict the defense has no way of proving.
ReplyDeleteNow that the judge and prosecutor have finally admitted the affair, the court is playing a game by telling the defense it's way too late. The defense has been trying to pursue this for years.