As Whitmire explained to the media, “You need to be selective about where you want to get caught drinking, I guess.”

Driving Drunk? Better to Get Caught in Houston than New Braunfels

State Senator Whitmire is pointing the finger at how nonsensical the current DUI system is, telling the media,  “Why would the state of Texas have a criminal-justice system in Houston that will completely allow you to have no record, and in the New Braunfels experience, you do (have a record), and then you go to Bexar County and they don’t even file on you (for) DWI the first time?”

Houston DWI Practices

Over in Houston, the Harris County District Attorney has established a DWI program where first-timers pleading guilty to a DWI offense will be given a probated sentence, as well as mandatory alcohol treatment, community service, and one of those alcohol-testing ignition lock gizmos.  Do everything right, and the first timer’s conviction disappears.  Nothing on their driving record.   

Skip over to New Braunfels, Different Story

That’s the truth of it:  drive under the influence in Harris County, and you’ll walk away with zip on your record.  Do the exact same thing in New Braunfels, about 20 miles north of San Antonio on IH 35, and you’ll have a blight on your driving record for years to come. 

You get pulled over in New Braunfels for driving while intoxicated, and you’re gonna get a DWI on your record.  Which is a big deal, of course.  (Remember this at Wurstfest in November, the huge German sausage festival held in New Braunfels every year.)  

Whitmore points to unfairness of “checkerboard” DUI system coupled with the current legal surcharges.

Whitmire’s doing two things.  He’s blowing the lid off the various DUI prosecutorial treatments that exist in different parts of the state.  And, he’s calling for the Texas Legislature to repeal the Driver Responsibility Program.

We’ve written about these surcharges before.  There not cheap, and they’re not getting paid.  Currently, 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.  You don’t pay, and your license gets suspended. 

All that means, of course, is that people who can’t afford to pay the surcharge just drive anyway – with a suspended license – hoping they won’t get caught. 

Can Whitmire Really Change Things from the Current DWI Unfairness?

John Whitmire is trying to change things.  Can he?  Well, Whitmire is becoming a congressional spokesperson for the blatant injustices that exist in the DWI / DUI system in Texas today.  He’s also using his position as Committee Chairman to create a group of experts to come up with recommendations for a truly uniform way of dealing with suspected drunk drivers in all the various 200+ Texas Counties.

What’s really going on here is District Attorneys trying to find creative ways to deal with budget problems and a huge backlog of drunk driving cases on their books.  So, it’s really about money.  Surprise. 

Will Whitmire be bold enough to address THAT elephant in the room?  We’ll see ….

Charles Dean Hood Is Snubbed by the United States Supreme Court – They Don’t Do a Thing about the Judge-DA Affair During Trial

However, the bad news is this: the United States Supreme Court has done squat about the rest of Mr. Hood’s case.  And Charles Dean Hood had a pretty darn good reason to ask for a new guilt-or-innocence trial: during his original trial, the judge and the District Attorney trying the case for the State of Texas were having a sexual affair. 

Pillow Talk?  We have to assume so, don’t we?  Isn’t that the right thing to do — assume that the lovers talked about their WORK, which just happened to be whether or not Charles Dean Hood should be convicted of capital murder and sentenced to die?

Supreme Court Is Silent on Their Reasons for This - Despite the Legion of Legal Ethics Scholars, Judges, and Prosecutors that Joined with Hood in his Request.

While for many, this Judge-DA Hanky Panky Point of Error seemed a slam dunk argument it obviously wasn’t for the High Court.  They tossed out Hood’s petition on Monday.  Without comment. 

This, in the face of 20+ former judges and prosecutors filing an amicus brief supporting Hood’s position, along with 30+ experts in legal ethics.

Hood’s attorney has decried this as “fundemental injustice.”   

Of course it is. 

Read the Amicus Brief filed on behalf of Charles Dean Hood before the U.S. Supreme Court by former judges, state prosecutors, and state officials (including former Texas Governor Mark White and former FBI director William Sessions) at the Constitution Project site, where it is available for download as a pdf.

Policing For Profit — a Report Every Citizen Should Read

 If you go and read the 2010 asset forfeiture report, you’ll get sad.  And mad.  At least, let’s hope so.  But it’s important that you KNOW THIS. 

The report details what is happening in this country, state by state.  Through the use of web technology, it’s easy enough to plow through all this information:  the site lets you pick a state and review its information on a separate webpage. 

Go to Texas’ summary in the report, and learn that we’ve been given a grade of D-.  We flunked in State Law Evasion, but got a D (woo hoo) in Forfeiture Law, so presumably this averages out to somewhat higher than a failing grade.  D minus. 

My, doesn’t that make you feel safe?  By the way, Texas is one of the lowest state scores.  (The lowest scores were shared by Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.) Betcha you’d already figured that out, if you’ve been following this blog. 

What’s Going On Here?

There are two kinds of asset forfeiture laws in this country: civil and criminal.  The federal government has its own set of forfeiture laws . So do each of the states, including Texas, of course.  Asset forfeiture laws govern when the government can TAKE YOUR PROPERTY. 

The CIVIL asset forfeiture laws are the ones that are so scary.  Under the civil forfeiture statutes, law enforcement can walk up, take (“seize”) your stuff and then just keep any property that they suspect may be involved in some kind of criminal activity.   Sounds like it’s CRIMINAL asset forfeiture, right? 

Well, here’s the difference:  in civil asset forfeiture, the Owner doesn’t even have to be charged, much less not found guilty, of any crime and still, he or she can lose their property to the cops.  And this can be any kind of property;  money, computers, cars, even someone’s HOME.

Added to this is the fact that in some states — like Texas and for example, Georgia — the local law enforcement agency is allowed to keep this property for its own coffers; there’s not any kind of state agency double-check, where property that’s been taken is forwarded to some regional clearinghouse or something. 

Oh, no.   Bottom line, for some law enforcement agencies, asset forfeiture is a profit-center.   

The 2010 asset forfeiture report by the Institute for Justice is the first of its kind.  No one has thought to undertake an national study of asset forfeiture in this country before now.   And it’s very, very frightening and frustrating to learn what’s going on.

Finally, Tim Cole is Pardoned

However, on Monday something else happened.  Governor Perry signed the pardon of Timothy Cole, the first person in the State of Texas to be cleared of wrongdoing by DNA evidence after his death. 

If you follow this blog, then you’re aware that there was some problem getting here: arguments were made that the Governor had no legal right to grant this pardon, the Attorney General said so, and there was a major brouhaha before justice was done. 

What Will We Learn from the Tim Cole Tragedy?

Now that the pardon has indeed been granted, and the family of Tim Cole has achieved victory in his vindication, there are still questions that should be asked — lessons to be learned from the life of Tim Cole. 

Here are a couple:

1.  At Grits for Breakfast, there is much discussion on how many more Tim Coles are there?  How many more false convictions are on the books right now, with innocent men and women behind bars standing firm on their innocence?

It’s a good question.  With crime labs in the chaotic state they are these days, it’s debatable whether or not DNA testing can be trusted in cases pending before the court.  Who is going to undertake the process of vindication through DNA testing of folk who are already behind bars?  The Innocence Project of Texas does this — but their resources are limited, and they have to choose their cases accordingly. 

Tim Cole Lesson No. 1:  There’s a way to get innocent folk out of prison through DNA testing, but we’ve got to figure out how to do it, and who is going to pay for it – and how to secure their release through appeal or pardon once the test results are back.  Part of the expense is the judicial process AFTER the test reveals their innocence.  It’s not just a matter of taking a lab report to the prison and getting someone released. 

2.  At the Burnt Orange Report, discussion is had over Tim Cole’s case showing us once again how eyewitness identifications simply cannot be trusted as reliable evidence.  In Cole’s case, a young woman traumatized by rape picked Tim Cole in a photo lineup.  She was wrong.  The man who raped her later admitted the crime, and many years later, that victim came face to face with her perpetrator – all as part of the efforts to exonerate and free Tim Cole. 

Tim Cole Lesson 2:  Eyewitness testimony simply should not be trusted as evidence in a criminal case.  This should be absolutely paramount when it is the key piece of evidence that the State is using to put someone behind bars for any period of time, much less placing them on Death Row.  Human beings do not have trustworthy recollections of events, this has been proven time and time again.  When will the judicial system finally recognize just how flawed finger-pointing is?  Who knows.  Until they do, criminal defense attorneys must fight, and fight hard, against the probative value of any “eyewitness” — and perhaps pointing the finger at the Tim Cole case may help place this “evidence” in its proper perspective.

Policeman Gives Sworn Statement, Dallas County Prosecutor Told Him (as Sole Eyewitness) Who to Point Out At Trial

Just this past week, another Texas scandal involving the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office is brewing. The ONLY eyewitness in a trial back in 1995 has now come forward, and given a sworn statement that the prosecutor coached the witness to take the stand and point the finger at defendant Richard Miles.

The “eyewitness” is now a police officer in Oklahoma, has signed an affidavit just this month, swearing that he was told where Mr. Miles would be sitting in the courtroom, and that he needed to point the finger at this man — even though the guy in the courtroom didn’t look like the man that Miles saw shoot a pistol into a car, killing one man and injuring another.

Miles isn’t going to be released based upon this Oklahoma cop’s affidavit because he’s already out — freed after 14 years behind bars — because a memo was discovered in an old Dallas County District Attorney file that identified someone else as the suspect … a memo that was never, ever turned over to the defense.

And this happens everywhere, apparently, since just this past week, over in Fort Lauderdale  ….

Before someone starts labeling this a rogue incident, an exception the rule of prosecutors being trustworthy, consider this new story that hit the stands this same week.  Over in Florida, the Public Defenders Office – supported by the Broward County Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers – has made public a letter that was sent to the office of State Attorney Mike Satz.  In it, the Public Defender’s Office flat out accuses the Florida prosecutors of routinely playing outside the rules.

The letter charges, in part, that the state attorneys there are not only routinely holding back evidence from defense attorneys that is helpful to the defendants, but they’re also covering up for bad cops and helping out those who come through their offices who happen to be of a higher socioeconomic level — the rich and powerful. (And you thought this only happened on Miami Vice reruns.)

The letter was sent just last Tuesday by Public Defender Howard Finkelstein, where he writes that he’s been forced “…to the inescapable conclusion that the [Florida] State Attorney’s Office, either through neglect or by design, has been non-compliant with its obligation to disclose favorable evidence to criminal defendants.”

Just Some Bad Actors, or Corruption in the System?  Hmmmm……

Of course, some might say that Broward County is a bad example.  It’s been labeled corrupt, and over the past two years alone there have been five arrests of elected officials, six cops have been sent to prison, and the city manager’s been tagged for embezzling a half-million bucks.

But then, maybe they haven’t been watching the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office much.  Heck, just last month the county commissioners voted to settle the lawsuit brought against Dallas County by a former investigator in the DA’s office, who had sued for wrongful termination alleging that he’d been fired for reporting the unethical behavior in the Dallas DA’s Office.

Curiouser and curiouser….

For many, it was shocking that defense attorneys weren’t already allowed the chance to question lab technicians on the witness stand about their lab results.  (One more example of how CSI isn’t based in reality.)  Well, here’s something even more shocking: the U.S. Supreme Court may change its mind.

That’s right.  The Supreme Court may take back the right of a defense attorney to cross-examine crime lab pros. 

Melendez-Diaz was just argued this summer.  (Interestingly, Massachusetts’ Martha Coakley argued on behalf of the prosecution – you can watch the oral arguments at Oyez.org.  Yes, this is the same Martha Coakley that is rumored to be losing her battle with Republican Scott Brown in tomorrow’s special election to fill Teddy Kennedy’s vacant Senate seat.)   

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court granted – and heard – oral argument in another case just last week:  Briscoe v. Virginia (07-11191).  Briscoe is a consolidation of two cases, and it was argued by the Virginia Solicitor General for the prosecution.  The two cases in Briscoe both dealt with ”certificates of analysis” from state crime labs without any forensic scientists taking the witness stand at the defendants’ trials.  At issue, can the prosecution present evidence of illegal drugs (which is what the certificates claimed were found) without calling the human beings who did the forensic testing? 

In these situations, criminal defense attorneys have to make a decision – should they stipulate to the certificates as being truthful, without questioning the lab techs?  Sometimes, this may be smart.  Sometimes, a good defense lawyer wants that crime lab tech on the stand.

What Will Happen to Melendez-Diaz now? 

There are critics who argue that Melendez-Diaz was a wrong decision, that it was decided too fast and without sufficient consideration of the expense and confusion that forcing forensic technicians out of their labs and into courtrooms would raise.  They’re excited that the Supreme Court will correct what they see as an error — particularly with Justice Sotomayor on the court now. 

However, there are a great many criminal defense attorneys that aren’t happy about these rumblings.  As Justice Scalia pointed out during last week’s Briscoe arguments, not putting those crime lab reports up for cross-examination is tantamount to “trial by affidavit.” 

Without examination, these untrustworthy crime lab results are merely “trial by affidavit.”

Look, there’s a reason to put a human on the stand in these situations.  Crime lab analysis is scientific in nature and there aren’t many scientists in the courtroom, usually.  Those pieces of paper that pop out of labs are already known to be unreliable, and defense attorneys MUST have the opportunity to have that crime lab technician or forensic scientist on the witness stand to explain what was done, and why the results are (or aren’t) accurate. 

We cannot bow to worship crime lab reports as inviolate.  Let us only hope that the United States Supreme Court uses Briscoe to support Melendez-Diaz, and not to erase the victory for justice that Melendez-Diaz represents.

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.

This is getting lotsa attention for DA Ligon.

For example, plaintiff’s personal injury lawyers at Jim Adler & Associates — you’ve seen their ads if you watch any TV whatsoever — have already posted on this at their firm blog.  They call this a “sweet” idea, discuss how “shame” may be a great deterrent to the holiday car crashes caused by drunk driving, and then conclude their post (of course) with a reminder that if anyone wants to file a wrongful death or serious personal injury claim based on drunk driving, well … they DO do that kind of work. 

Techies and geeks interested in the tweeting aspects of DA Ligon’s brilliant idea are writing about this, too.  Gizmodo already follows the DA on Twitter (Ligon can be seen at twitter.com using the name “MontgomeryTXDAO”) — and they’re reporting they will be reading this “comedy goldmine in the making.”

It’s a story that is getting national media coverage.  MyFoxCharlotte is covering the story, quoting Montgomery County assistant district attorney Warren Diepraam as claiming he initially came up with the idea of tweeting all drunk driving arrests between Christmas Eve and New Year’s Day. 

Here’s some things that should be considered …like innocent victims suing for damages ….

1.  This isn’t being posted on a government site.  It’s been tweeted on a personal account set up at www.twitter.com.

2.  Anyone arrested for DUI is still innocent until proven guilty.  What happens to those who are later found innocent?  The “shame” of the tweet is already out there — and assuming arguendo that the tweet does cause harm and humiliation, then can the victim sue the twitterer individually for the harm done?  Remember, this isn’t a government account.  Can they sue the assistant district attorney, who so proudly claims the Shaming Tweet Strategy as his big idea?  Can they sue Twitter, too?

3.  What about expulsion of a drunk driving charge now the road?  Do expulsion orders need to include social media sites now?

Seems that Detective East — a career cop, with over 35 years of service to the community — has made a habit of taking work home and keeping it there.  Specifically, police files.  You know, where there are witness statements, lab reports, notes from cops, etc.  Things that attorneys sometimes call evidence.

And there are a lot of files.  Over 2000 of them.  All family violence cases filed since 2005.  Family violence — where wives and  mothers and girlfriends and children are beaten and abused.  Pretty important stuff. 

Right now, the Powers That Be are checking the files over because of a concern that things might not have been handled properly.  There are rules — and there have always been rules — on how the cops are supposed to handle evidence.  Keeping it in your garage isn’t cool.

It’s a Big Huge Chaotic Mess

Now, this might be one thing if the files were all neatly organized and color colded, sealed in boxes, and kept stacked against the garage wall next to the leaf blower.  Bad, but not a nightmare.  If Adrian Monk had files in his garage, we probably wouldn’t lose sleep over the file contents, right?

Well, forget that.  The paperwork is a chaotic mess.  It’s not clear if there is any system at all to the arrangement, Detective East just brought in about a dozen boxes filled with paper, all cascading over with documents and some labelled by year.  East turned them over to his colleagues after an internal tracking system picked up that some case files weren’t in the Dallas Police Department proper. 

Right now, the cops are going thru the files in some tension filled conference room down at headquarters .   The District Attorney is already telling the media that while they’re waiting till the cops finish their run-through of the files, the DA already thinks there will be some new family violence cases filed … maybe a lot of family violence cases. 

This Today Right After Richard Miles Being Freed on Monday– What is Up with the Dallas Police Dept Filing System????

We’ll see.  Meanwhile, you read about this and you think back to Monday, when an innocent man spent 14 years in jail before the note written by a cop that told about the real killer’s identity, location, and confession to his girlfriend and you gotta wonder.   What ARE those Dallas police files like?  Sounds like there’s something rotten in Denmark in how the cops keep track of evidence, doesn’t it?

When the news first hit that a trial court judge and the district attorney who prosecuted cases in her courtroom had had a long-standing sexual relationship, lots of folk were stunned.  And lots expected something To.Be.Done.About.This.  (See earlier post by this blog.)

Especially Charles Hood and his appellate counsel.  Hood was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in a trial before Judge Verna Sue Holland with D.A. Tom O’Connell putting on the state’s case.   Seems pretty easy to think that Hood deserves a fair trial, right? 

Charles Dean Hood Sits on Texas’ Death Row, Knowing that During The Trial that sent him to death, the Judge and the DA were playing footsy

It isn’t even up for debate at this juncture:  trial court judge Verna Sue Holland and prosecutor Tom O’Connell, Jr. were involved romantically (yes — having an affair, a sexual relationship) while the capital murder trial of Charlie Hood was taking place.  Let’s think about that … shouldn’t this be strongly and swiftly punished? NOT allowed? 

Apparently not in Charlie Hood’s case.  This week, the high court has decided that Hood doesn’t get a fair trial because — wait for it — Hood should have brought it up earlier.  In an earlier writ.  Not making this up, folks.

What the heck?  Read what the Court decided — here’s the opinion and the dissent.

The highest state court on the subject just denied Charles Hood’s request that he have a new trial.  Here’s the Majority Opinion. Per Curiam, Not to be Published.   Not everyone agreed. Here’s the Dissenting Statement by Justice Cochran, who is joined by Justices Price and Holcomb.   The dissent sure makes sense — kudos to Justices Cochran, Price, and Holcomb.

What about the undisputed facts that the Judge and the DA BOTH LIED REPEATEDLY about having this sexual relationship? 

Here, the litany of facts listed in this week’s Dissent:

1. Judge Verla Sue Holland of the 296th Judicial District Court of Collin County, presided over Hood’s capital murder trial.
2. The elected District Attorney of Collin County, Thomas S. O’Connell, Jr., participated in the prosecution of Hood for capital murder.
3. Judge Holland and Mr. O’Connell were involved in an intimate sexual relationship prior to Hood’s capital murder trial.
4. Prior to the capital murder trial-and during the appellate and post-conviction proceedings-Judge Holland never disclosed her relationship with Mr. O’Connell to Hood.
5. During these proceedings, Mr. O’Connell never disclosed his relationship with Judge Holland to Hood.
6. Judge Holland and Mr. O’Connell took deliberate measures to ensure that their affair would remain secret. . . . Mr. O’Connell could not recall telling anyone, except possibly his sisters, about his romantic relationship with Judge Holland. Judge Holland told no one.
7. Based only on rumors of an affair, Hood’s former habeas counsel decided to look into the matter prior to filing the initial habeas application. In 1995-96, Hood’s investigator, Tena S. Francis, conducted extensive records research. She reviewed divorce records, records obtained from the Office of Elections Administration, and case files in the Collin County District Clerk’s Office. Ms. Francis interviewed members of Hood’s defense team, attorneys practicing in Collin County, and Judge Holland’s former husband, Earl Holland. She attempted to interview Judge Holland’s bailiff, but he refused to discuss the judge’s personal life with her. She contacted the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
8. Ms. Francis was unable to develop any concrete evidence of the affair.
9. On June 27, 2005, shortly before Hood’s scheduled execution date, A. Richard Ellis, former counsel for Hood, contacted Judge Holland. She refused to comment on the allegations that she had a romantic affair with Mr. O’Connell. On the same day, Mr. Ellis contacted Mr. O’Connell. Mr. O’Connell denied that he had a romantic affair with Judge Holland.
10. On June 3, 2008, Hood received the affidavit of Matthew Goeller, a former assistant district attorney in Collin County, Texas.
11. Mr. Goeller’s affidavit marked the first time that a former employee of the District Attorney’s Office who had worked there during Mr. O’Connell’s tenure was willing to speak on the record and under oath about the relationship.
12. Mr. Goeller stated that the romantic relationship between Judge Holland and Mr. O’Connell was ongoing when Mr. Goeller began working at the District Attorney’s Office in 1987. Mr. Goeller could only assert that the relationship was “common knowledge,” not that he personally knew of any romantic interactions. 
13. In June 2008, counsel for Hood retained Toni Knox, a private investigator. She reviewed the work previously conducted by Ms. Francis and then interviewed approximately two dozen individuals in the Collin County area who seemed likely to have some knowledge of the Holland-O’Connell affair.
14. The witnesses could only attest that they had heard rumors about the affair.

Hood’s Life is at Stake –  as is the Reputation of Our State’s Criminal Justice System

A man’s life is at stake here.  Charles Hood is sentenced to die as a result of the trial overseen by Judge Holland and based upon a case presented by her lover-prosecutor.  Surely a new trial is warranted here, and the idea that a writ should have been filed sooner and therefore, he should be executed based on that secretly sexy trial, is simply a dog that won’t hunt.   

And the nation knows it, and our courts are becoming a joke.  Just go read:

Salon Magazine this week:  “The Texas Justice System operates in a parallel universe ….”

CBS News:  Whitewash

USA Today this week:  read the comments….

By the way, Verna Sue Holland served on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals as a justice during the years 1997 - 2001 and she worked dailiy with EIGHT of the current nine justices on the CCA.