When rights are taken from you, there’s usually no advance invitation sent – the quieter the grab, the better.  Which is why we’ve been monitoring the No Refusal campaign here and why it’s good to see the national media taking note of what is happening here in Texas.

In this week’s Wall Street Journal, there is a lengthy discussion of Texas’ “no refusal” campaign, which the WSJ has labelled a “blood-test policy.” Included in the WSJ article is an overview of how No Refusal campaigns are getting to be as popular as the Kardashians here in Texas as well as gaining in popularity in other states, like Florida and Louisiana and Illinois.

Over at Fox News, there’s also some media coverage of Texas’ No Refusal campaign.   Included there, some discussion of the basic constitutional issues that the No Refusal campaign brings with it.

Here in Dallas,  people are taking notice.  In D Magazine’s FrontBurner column this past Tuesday, Michael Mooney pondered what the No Refusal campaign really means to everyone, and ends his article with the realization that allowing the police power to take your blood out of your body AGAINST YOUR WILL is “terrifying.”

That’s right, Mr. Mooney – it is terrifying.  People need to get what is going on here.

Texas DWI No Refusal Campaign Violates Constitutional Rights.

Let’s consider what is happening down in San Antonio because we know that Dallas and Fort Worth and Houston and every other district attorney in this state is watching San Antonio’s head prosecutor Susan Reed to see how well her No Refusal prototype works out.   Reed has implemented a No Refusal Campaign in Bexar County not just for holidays or three-day weekends, but every single day of the week.

In Bexar County right now, the No Refusal Campaign is in place 24/7/365.  It’s been okayed and funded by the State of Texas’ Department of Transportation grant of $1.4 million, by the way.

This means that any person who is pulled over by law enforcment in the San Antonio area can be forced to have their blood drawn – and the traditional hurdle of having a hearing or some kind of argument against that search and seizure is out the window as judges are on standby to rubber stamp search warrants allowing the blood to be drawn.

It’s a standardized procedure in the Alamo City right now.  Get pulled over, and refuse to take a breath test, and the San Antonio law enforcement will put you in their vehicle and drive you down to the nearest magistrate’s office.  There’s a judge at the ready to sign a search warrant to allow the blood to be taken from you, and that warrant gets signed.  (Where are your arguments before that judge? Good question.)

Next,  the blood is taken by a nurse and then it gets taken over to the medical examiner so the blood alcohol content can be determined in the examiner’s crime lab.  If the BAC meets or exceeds the legal limit for intoxication, then you’re arrested for Driving While Intoxicated.

However, this should not be the whole story.  Consider these unknowns:

• We are not aware of how many times those warrants are requested and not signed.  (If there’s ever a refusal.)
• No reports on how often the tests come back with results that show the BAC has not met the legal limits.  (Think about that one.)
• No reports on whether or not certain cops are doing this more often than others.  (These campaigns give cops lots of power, don’t they?)
• No reports on whether or not certain classes of folk are getting pulled over more often than others. (If you are African American, are you more likely to be stopped?)

The federal constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure.  It also protects our due process rights.  Police powers must be monitored and curtailed in order for freedom to be maintained.

For more information, consider:

Ten Things To Know In Case Your Car Is Pulled Over in Texas

What Is Legal Intoxication in Texas

Defenses to Blood Samples (Contamination, Legal Blood vs Medical Blood,  Impact of Medications, etc.)

HAVE YOU SEEN THIS MAN?

Right now, this Pennsylvania DA is talked about like he’s dead, maybe a good guy who got assassinated; assistant football coach Mike McQueary still has a job at Penn State; Penn State Head Football Coach Joe Paterno (“JoPa”) just got fired; and former defense coordinator Jerry Sandusky is facing child sex-abuse charges.

Tomorrow, lots of people will be watching what all this will mean when the Penn State Nittany Lions go up against Nebraska.  It’s going to be televised starting at noon EST on ESPN.

Seems there’s a move to get everyone to wear white to the game as a show of support for JoPa, who only lost his job after a growing public outcry.  How many will be wearing white at the game?  You gotta wonder.

Mike McQueary Put on Admin Leave Today for His Safety

Today, we know that Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary has been placed on administrative leave – not for wrongdoing, though, but for his safety.  Seems McQuery’s getting death threats.  Shocking, right?  Shocking that some folk may be very, very angry that the guy who witnessed a boy being sexually abused in a shower and then ran home to daddy rather than help that kid should be allowed to be on the field tomorrow.

What is all this about child abuse?  Read the Grand Jury testimony here. McQueary is the graduate student testifying regarding Victim 2.  We’ll also be very interested in Victim 6 testimony, but that’s in a bit.

Penn State University Apparently Still Doesn’t Get It – Or Do They?

Safety for McQueary.  Couple this with today’s latest news release from the Penn State powers that be, and you gotta wonder when these guys are going to snap.  Kids were hurt – and today’s statement from the Penn State Board of Trustees?  Get this, from their release:

We call upon all members of the University community to rededicate ourselves to ensuring the integrity of our institution.

Wo Nellie.  Their integrity?  Penn State’s reputation?  Really????

Here’s My Opinion On Ray Gricar- the Criminal Defense Lawyer Perspective

I want to explain the implications of what I’ve been reading about Pennsylvania prosecutor Ray Gricar — the district attorney that has been missing since 2005.  Here’s what I’m thinking, from my perspective as a Board Certified criminal defense attorney practicing criminal law for many years in Texas.

1.  Ray Gricar is no hero.

Ray Gricar was present for that Grand Jury and he’s hearing all that testimony.  Go read the Victim 6 testimony.  In it, Sandusky gave a confession, a CONFESSION.

Sandusky states to Victim 6′s mother — as overheard by State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston and University Police Detective Ronald Shreffler — that his genitals “maybe” touched the kid’s naked body as he, also naked, hugged the boy in the shower.  Sandusky to the mother: “I understand.  I was wrong.  I wish I could get forgiveness.  I know I won’t get it from you.  I wish I could die.”

Jerry Sandusky knew what he had done to those boys was wrong.  He said so.  This testimony is absolute proof of guilt.  Any wet behind the ears DA could have gotten a conviction with this evidence.

Ray Gricar wasn’t a newbie prosecutor.  Ray Gricar had this testimony, along with everything else you can read in that Grand Jury transcript, and he didn’t file a thing.

All this jabber about Gricar being his own man and going after justice, not being political: that is a bunch of hooey.  Read the six victim transcript. It’s blatantly obvious Gricar is no hero here.

2.  Ray Gricar Intentionally Didn’t Pursue This Prosecution

Media reports have DA Ray Gricar involved in the Sandusky child abuse investigation with Gricar having Jerry Sandusky setup by police in one victim’s house, where he spoke with the boy’s mother while the cops listened to the conversation.   As reported to the Grand Jury, Jerry Sandusky admitted in the presence of a police officer that he, in fact, showered with the child victim, which would corroborate the sexual abuse allegation. He also admitted that what he did was wrong.

So, cops have the evidence and they take it back to the DA.  Think about Law and Order on TV: the cop part of the show is done, and now the story flips to the attorney part.

Well, here District Attorney Ray Gricar declined to prosecute Penn State’s Jerry Sandusky for a lack of evidence. Gricar is telling people that he doesn’t have enough to go forward.

Look, I’m an experienced criminal defense attorney: usually having a prosecutor say words like this is music to my ears.  Not here.  This is very, very strange based on my experience. Read that transcript again: Gricar doesn’t have enough evidence?  Bull.

3.  Gricar Disappears in 2005 – So Where is He?

Next thing you know, District Attorney Ray Gricar has disappeared from the face of the earth. No body has ever been found.  From the NCAA site, we know that his car was found abandoned 50 miles away from his home; his laptop, wallet, and keys were missing; and there was a search on the home computer, “how to wreck a hard drive.”

His personal computer – a laptop that Gricar was supposed to return to the District Attorney’s Office as he was about to retire – was found in a local river, but its hard drive was long gone.  Guts of that laptop had been apparently removed.

In my opinion, it seems like Gricar deep-sixed the sex investigation to protect Penn State, and has since disappeared. But that doesn’t mean he’s dead.

FBI Reports Ray Gricar is Missing, Not Dead

If you visit the Federal Bureau of Investigation site, you will find what the federal government thinks about this case.  Pennsylvania district attorney Ray Gricar is listed as MISSING.  He’s known to have not one but two alias:  Ray Gray and Ray Lange.

Ray Gricar even has his own Wanted poster (pdf downloadable here).

4.  Meanwhile, Police Close the Case on Gricar – After Checking With Psychics

Now, what about the local police up near Penn State?  What have they done to find Ray Gricar?  Well, we know one thing:  they’ve checked leads given to them by psychics and shockingly, that didn’t get them anywhere.

Watch this YouTube video, complete with spooky psychics and law enforcement interviews on a case gone cold.

Apparently, this was enough for the local powers that be:  a local county judge declared Ray Gricar to be presumed dead in July 2011 at the request of his daughter.  (The FBI Missing Persons list remains current.)

5.  In My Opinion, Ray Gricar Is Alive and Well and We All Need to “Amber Alert” Him

The FBI has Gricar as missing.  The New York Times is reporting on how lots of other folk think he’s still alive and kicking.  I do, too.

I think we all need to be on the lookout for Ray Gricar or Ray Lange or Ray Gray … because this is the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct I’ve seen.  Justice served?  The injustice of this entire Penn State scandal angers and sickens me, and Ray Gricar’s job was to fight for those boys.  From what we have as facts right now, we know he didn’t do it.

Where’s Shelby County?  It’s near the Texas – Louisiana border (you may recognize the area as Center, Texas), closer as the crow flies to Shreveport than Dallas, and as Shelby County District Attorney, Linda Kaye Russell is in charge of prosecuting all crimes within its jurisdictional limits.

Not exactly a place that you would think would be a hot bed of drug crimes, right?  Put the word “Texas” with money laundering and drug trafficking and most people think the border of Texas with Mexico, not Texas with the Bayou State.

Well, surprise.

According to this new, hot story from the AP, the Shelby County District Attorney was responsible for a jurisdiction with established drug running campaigns  — a veritable hot bed of drug-related crime.

Instead of fiercing fighting against all this criminal activity, according the Associated Press, Ms. Russell was allegedly making deals with the evildoers.  Money deals.

The story goes that the Texas DA was trading cash for letting them go or offering cushy sentences, profiting by close to a million bucks (reports are $800,000+) within a twelve month period.

August 2010: Russell Took the Fifth to Questions About Highway Piracy

Interestingly, search around for DA Russell and you’ll find that suspicions of her involvement with “highway piracy” have been around for awhile.  Over a year ago, there was a news story out of Beaumont’s local ABC affiliate that Shelby County DA Lynda K. Russell was deposed in a civil lawsuit back in August 2010 and DA Russell chose to assert the rights accorded her by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution for many, many of the questions posed to her during the deposition.

That’s right:  DA Russell took the Fifth in the deposition.  In fact, she took the Fifth to 100s of questions asked of her.  Hundreds.  So many, that one attorney present during the questioning called the question-and-answer session “mind-numbing.”

So, looks like a civil lawsuit brought by some folk who got pulled over long ago in Shelby County, Texas, has turned into a big criminal investigation — and now, we’re all going to learn a lot more about the activities of Linda Kaye Russell and her Office of the District Attorney of Shelby County, Texas.  Stay tuned.

These Driver Responsibility Surcharges are VERY EXPENSIVE.  The new law has been the law of the land for 39 days already, and yet something fishy is going on.  VERY FISHY.

First, consider how expensive these Driver Responsibility Surcharges are.  Back in April 2010, we discussed the cost of DWI Surcharges.  From that post:

Right now, Texas drivers convicted of DWI (driving while intoxicated) as well as a couple of other violations (driving without a driver’s license, or one that’s invalid; as well as driving without insurance) must pay automatic surcharges every year, for three years from the date of conviction.

And it isn’t cheap: for a DWI conviction, the surcharge is $1,000 a year for three years for a first conviction; $1,500 a year for the second; and $2,000 a year for any conviction with a blood-alcohol content of 0.16 or greater. That’s big money, right?

People Aren’t Paying the Surcharges

It’s not news to those involved in DWI work that people aren’t paying these surcharges. However, everyone may not know that state-wide, over $1 billion hasn’t been paid. One billion dollars in unpaid surcharges – no wonder they’re having some hearings down in Austin.

Next, consider what’s been happening since September 1st.   Apparently, not much.

Seems that the Texas Department of Public Safety hasn’t been following the new law – and Grits for Breakfast has the emails to prove it. Our fellow blogger (in a blog we recommend you follow, see the sidebar), a non-lawyer mind you, wrote the state agency to check into how things were doing with the change on Surcharges and what he got back in email has been published online.

DPS, bottom line, has no “…estimated date for implementation…” and isn’t doing a darn thing about complying with the new law.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that the new law isn’t effective.  It just means that the Department of Public Safety is dragging its heels on waiving those surcharges.  You are entitled to the waiver if you meet the law’s requirements – period.   You don’t need to file a special pleading anywhere.

Still, here’s the reality:

1.  someone is still going to get surcharge notices from DPS regardless of the new law;

2. the DPS records are still going to show a lot of folk responsible for paying money that the new law says they don’t owe;

3.  someone pulled over by a police officer (for speeding, no turn signal, whatever) is still going to have a fight on their hands when the cop runs their Texas Driver’s License number through DPS records and gets notified that the driver owes surcharges — which is not true under the new law; and

4.  some legal fees are going to have to be paid by folk to get a Court Order signed by a judge that confirms that they don’t owe the surcharge just to win a fight with DPS that shouldn’t be necessary … if DPS would just follow current Texas law.

And by near the border, we mean anytime you get around 90 miles (or an hour and a half travel time) away on a major highway.

• Your personal stories have to be 500 words or less.
• You can stay anonymous if you’d like to do so.
• Photos or videos max out at 10 MB – and it’s fine if they are also showing over at Flikr or YouTube.  No worries there.

Why is the State of Texas, of all things, putting up a website like this?

Well, seems like there are lots of people, including the head of the federal government’s Homeland Security, who are poo-pooing the idea that there’s a lot of violent activity here in South Texas and this site has been set up as a virtual soapbox so Texans (and presumably others, like Mexican Nationals, etc.) can share what they know. Or have seen or experienced.

There’s simply not enough manpower in the law enforcement in these areas to combat the influx of human trafficking, drugs, guns, etc. that is coming out of Mexico – and they’ll be the first to admit it. The State is providing this site as some support that the lack of police power or presence in this area is real.

Some Scary Stuff Down in South Texas is Being Documented Here

Already, stories are being shared at the site.  Scary stories.  Like the story where a South Texas rancher is abandoning his 38,000 acre ranch on Farm Road 755  and moving them to McAllen because it’s not safe to stay.  The ranch is 60 miles north of the border, and Farm Road 755 is great to drive if you’re wanting to avoid the checkpoints.  Watch the video, and learn how limited law enforcement is along this roadway.  Hear how the ranching family left their home only after having bullets zinging around their property at night and other dangers. 

Another one:  a Texas Ranger blunting telling a reporter that “we’re in a war” down in South Texas as the newscast delves into dangers this situation is causing to the national food supply as the cartels move further and faster into Texas farms and ranchlands.

The site is new.  There should be more stories over the next few months, so check back periodically to get more stuff. 

After so many posts discussing inept cops or corrupt police, this one is very different.  Here, there are huge amounts of territory where law enforcement simply doesn’t exist – or they are so outnumbered and outgunned that they won’t get out of the car (listen to the South Texas rancher video above to hear an officer say this exactly regarding stopping trucks on 755). 

There apparently just isn’t law enforcement, period, down there.

Casey Argues His Position: Felony By a Texas Judge

Casey argues that Judge Hinde violated state law when he sent out letters to lots of folk who had appeared for jury duty after he’d shown up to give them the standard “thank you for your participation in the jury process” speech.  The thank you letters blatantly asked for their vote in the November 2010 election in which Hinde was running for re-election  (the third paragraph begins, ”[w]e Texans elect our judges, and I am asking for your vote for Judge of the 269th District Court.”).

Rick Casey, a well-respected investigative journalist, first used the Texas Public Information Act to get copies of e-mails sent by Judge Hinde and the Harris County District Clerk’s Office, which confirm that the campaigning judge offered his services – volunteered — to speak to all the people who were showing up for jury duty and setting there, waiting in potential juror pools, from July 12, 2010, t0 November 1, 2010 (the day before the election).  That’s 28 mornings where Judge Hinde is essentially campaigning in front of a captive audience.

Casey’s investigation also reveals that Judge Hinde asked the district clerk for details about these folk, including names and addresses.  Why he asked is obvious: he needed this information so he could send letters to all these people (estimated to be around 10,000 individuals).

In Casey’s opinion, Judge Hinde has committed the criminal act of “misuse of official information” under Tex. Penal Code Section 39.06(c) which states:

A person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain benefit or with the intent to defraud another, he solicits or receives from a public servant information that 1) the public servant has access to by means of his office or employment; and 2) has not been made public.

Judge Hinde Responds That Technically, There’s Been No Violation of the Law

Casey argues that this violates the Texas Penal Code.  Judge Hinde disagrees, arguing that: paragraph D of the law defines information not made public as “information to which the public does not generally have access, and that is prohibited from disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code,” and the Judge argues that the information on jurors is not subject to Chapter 552  so its disclosure by definition is not prohibited.   Second argument:  seeking reelection isn’t seeking a benefit under Texas law, something already decided in the proceedings involving Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht.

Form over Substance: And is This Skirmish The End of This Controversy?

Form over substance, really.  Under Judge Hinde’s argument, technically he didn’t violate the language of the law even though the spirit of the statute is to keep juror info confidential.   The real question is: will this be the end of this controversy (so future jury pools can expect campaign correspondence all across the state), or will there be a tribunal other than Rick Casey’s column where the judge’s actions are considered?

Let’s see what happens.

Hank Skinner says he’s innocent.  He’s asking for DNA testing to be done.  Seems there were knives and things at the scene of the crime that hold DNA evidence — but no one has ever checked that evidence against Skinner’s DNA to confirm his claim of innocence. 

Right now, there is a request pending before the United States Supreme Court, based on this evidence issue, which would get Skinner a stay.  As this is being typed, there’s no news from Washington, D.C. that Skinner’s getting a response from them. 

There’s also a request setting on Governor Rick Perry’s desk.  Skinner is asking the Governor to give him a 30 day reprieve, so this DNA testing can be done.  Again, checking the news as this post is being typed — zip from Austin.

However, there has been one bit of news:  the Ambassador of France — yep, FRANCE — has officially asked Governor Perry to grant the reprieve or just go ahead and pardon Skinner.  It gets better.  Seems Skinner is married to a French woman, and the PRESIDENT of France has also offered his support to Mrs. Skinner, Sandrine Ageorges-Skinner.   Wow.

You’d think that if the idea that an innocent man might be fixin’ to die at the hands of a Texas executioner would be enough for Governor Perry to halt things and do some DNA testing.   Here it is, lunchtime on Execution Day and we’re hearing zip.  So, maybe the fact that an entire country is asking for a double check to be done might sway things. 

Of course, they can’t vote in November.  They’re French. 

Our thoughts and prayers go to Hank Skinner, his legal team, and his family.  May God bless you all on this terrible day.

1. EDUARDO “WALO” BAZAN, Hidalgo County constable, convicted of felony theft (probated) for taking a seized, stolen truck for his personal use. He’s been reelected to office, though this case was affirmed on appeal. Who knows whether he’s acting with authority right now; and  
2. LARRY DALE FLOYD, Denton county constable, removed from office after he faced accusations of child pornography here in Texas and something more sinister, trying to have sex with an eight year old, up in Colorado.

Now, reading the first two in this list, you’d think maybe the News was just organizing county constables who got into some trouble, since there’s also coverage in the News on the Dallas County Constable Cortes controversy.

You’d be wrong.

The next two in their list are ERNEST GERARD MIRELES, formerly the Maverick County attorney, who resigned after allegations wree filed against him that he wasn’t even in the county for months; and SAUL OCHOA, another constable.  Ochoa, out of Cameron County, was busted for selling marijuana that had been seized in drug busts – he was convicted and sentenced to prison.  

And then their list ends.  Wassup with that?

Here on this blog (both here and in our Blogger version), we’ve made it a raison d’etre to keep watch on Texas officials — whether they’re judges, prosecutors, or law enforcment officials, that are doing Bad Things. 

And our list (if you’d like to surf thru the categories over there to the right, categories like “Judge Watch” and “Cop Watch”) is a WHOLE LOT LONGER THAN FOUR NAMES.  These folk not only faced removal, they’ve faced serious jail time. 

1. For example, what about federal district judge Samuel Kent, the first federal judge ever accused of sex crimes, and who is now serving time in the pen?
2. Former state district judge and Ombudsman of the Texas Youth Commission, Cathy Evans, who faced a felony indictment for smuggling stuff into a prison facility?
3. Texas district judge Manuel Barraza, busted by the FBI last spring for taking bribes?
4. Montague County Sheriff Bill Keating, who copped a plea to get 10 years in a federal pen?
5. Refugio’s Chief of Police Chris Brock indicted last fall for felony theft (among other charges)?

There’s lots more.  We’d be happy to compare notes with the Dallas Morning News, if they’re interested.  Because there’s a lot more corruption in our state than that piddly little list of four names would lead you to believe, sad to say.

For example, just last month the Houston Chronicle reported that the fingerprint comparison unit of the Houston Police Department was being investigated for untrustworthy results, “shoddy” work, and a backlog of over 600 cases.  (We’ve already reported on how FINGERPRINTS just aren’t reliable anymore.) 

Forensic Lab Oversight Agency Efforts are Being Questioned

However, the media spotlight on the execution of an innocent man here in Texas, Cameron Todd Willingham, really fueled the fire — why wasn’t the “arson” evidence refuted as faulty back at trial time?  Suddenly, the little known Texas Forensic Science Commission (an agency established to oversee the state’s crime labs) was in the hot seat. 

And the Texas Forensic Science Commission doesn’t appear to like this much. 

Under the Texas Open Records Act, the news media can gain access to all public information held by the Texas Forensic Science Commission.  However, it’s been easier said than done since the FSC has used the lingo within that statute to try and hold onto its files, holding on hard.  The Fort Worth Star Telegram asked for information, and the FSC fought against turning stuff over to the paper. 

The Commission’s white-knuckled grip did get released a bit, after the Texas Attorney General (yep, the state’s highest attorney had to get involved) ruled that the FSC had to release some of the info that the newspaper requested, as it was indeed, “public” information.  The Fort Worth Star Telegram finally got a part of what it asked for — a week after the AG said they had to do it.

Forensic Science Commission’s Revelations Are Serious and Worrisome

What was included in the information that the FSC was forced to release?  Well, of immediate interest to those of us practicing in the Dallas area, the revelation that someone who used to work at the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences was a whistleblower, telling the FSC all about faulty DNA analysis, tainted rape kits, and unreliable blood stock.  That’s right — bad forensics right here, at the Dallas crime lab.  

This is all very, very scary and should be concerning all of us.  Both the police and the state prosecutors as well as  juries and the public at large tend to bow down to Forensic Evidence as if it were, indeed, revelations from On High.  Don’t forget that the Austin Police are going so far as to use DNA evidence to track down burglars these days ….

What Can We Do?  Criminal Defense Lawyers Can Fight Back Now – Thanks to the United States Supreme Court

Meanwhile, the United States Supreme Court is getting involved.  As we’ve discussed, whether or not police lab experts can be cross-examined by criminal defense counsel was decided this summer in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009).  The highest court in the land opined that it is a violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment not to allow the defense attorney to examine the forensic scientist who created the analysis or report that the state has placed into evidence.

Of course, this is far from enough to solve this problem — the ability to cross-examine forensic scientists on their analysis in the witness stand means an innocent defendant has already undergone investigation, arrest, and has been forced to trial in order to vindicate himself from bad science.   We need more. 

However, between the media’s efforts and a strong defense attorney there’s more hope now than ever before.  Certainly more now that there was years back, for Cameron Todd Willingham.

Meanwhile, the Texas Moratorium Network posted a notice on its website that it’s planning on having around 1900 protesters in front of the Bexar County Courthouse to voice opposition to “Sharon Killer” … and earlier today, they were already being heard pretty loudly down in the Alamo City, since they had set up nice big speakers to voice their opposition to the Chief Justice remaining on the court.

For many folk, this controversy surrounds Justice Keller failing to allow a last minute filing on behalf of Michael Richard, who died by execution later that same evening.   But it’s more than that.  Flying around these proceedings are two other big controversies:  the financial transparency (or lack thereof) by Justice Keller in her public filings – and the use of capital punishment overall.

Because this week, down in San Antonio, make no mistake about it:  not only is Justice Keller going to be tried in that courtroom, there’s going to be plenty of talk about whether or not the death penalty is cruel and unusual, especially given the very bureaucracies that have created this unique and rare hearing of our state’s highest criminal court’s chief judge.