Archive for the ‘Orwellian Threats to Rights’ Category

March 9th, 2009

DA Watch: Harris County DA Hires Lobbyist for Rest of Texas Legislative Session

Now, here’s something to ponder over … district attorneys (elected officials) hiring private, third-party lobbists to lobby for them with lawmakers (other elected officials).

So, the lawmakers don’t just check with the DAs on the repercussions of changing the Penal Code as part of their job?

Apparently NOT.

Over in Houston, the District Attorney has taken $17,000 out of the Hot Checks division and used it to pay for a lobbyist.

That’s right: a lobbyist. This guy, Hank Mitchell, is being paid by the Harris County District Attorney to lobby the Texas Legislature on behalf of the DA.

For how long? Through the end of the current legislative session.

About what? according to the Houston Chronicle, Mr. Mitchell’s job is to “ensure lawmakers have a Houston prosecutor’s perspective on possible changes to the penal code and other criminal justice laws.”

And, before you start scratching your head, you might like to know that this isn’t the first time this has been done.

Up in Vegas last summer, there was a big deal about a lobbyist name Rick Loop upping his fee from $80,000 to $150,000 to represent Distict and Justice Court judges before the Nevada legislature during its 2009 legislative session. The media brouhaha wasn’t over the fact that the judges were hiring the lobbyist, the brouhaha was over his price hike. Vegas, right.

Awhile back, someone thought there might be an ethical issue here. At least San Antonio DA Susan Reed did.

Back in 1999, the District Attorney for Bexar County, then and now Susan Reed, requested and got an Opinion from the Attorney General of the State of Texas, who was then John Cornyn, asking if a county could use public funds to hire a lobbyist to influence legislation. Cornyn said yes.

Here’s the link to that AG Opinion if you want to read it:
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/49cornyn/op/1999/pdf/JC0089.pdf.

Source:

Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6292221.html

Las Vegas Sun
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jun/29/same-lobbyist-courts-shorter-term-more-money/

February 23rd, 2009

20 Minutes and 2 Phone Calls May Be the Death Knell for Chief Justice Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Say what you like, no one who gets a philosophy degree from Rice University can be anything but brilliant.

Justice Sharon Keller got hers back in 1975 (and her law degree from SMU in 1978). So how could someone so smart do something so, so stupid?

It’s All About Twenty Minutes – Just 20 Minutes

Back on September 25, 2007, the United States Supreme Court announced that it was going to consider whether or not lethal injections were a constitutional way to impose the death penalty. (The federal constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment … which is why we don’t have electric chairs for capital punishment anymore.)

That same day, here in Texas, attorneys for a man on death row – name of Michael Richard – worked feverishly to finalize the necessary documents to halt his execution, which was scheduled for that day, September 25, 2007.

They were drafting a Motion to Stay his execution, based upon the announcement by the U.S. Supreme Court — after all, if the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection was unconstitutional, then it shouldn’t be used for Michael Richard.

Imagine the tension in that office that day. The hurry, the pressure. And then the computer screws up. (Of course it did – doesn’t this happen to you, too, when you’re on a deadline?)

So, these zealous defense attorneys call over to the Clerk’s office for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. They ask the Clerk to keep the doors open for twenty minutes — just 20 minutes — so they can file their Motion to Stay.

Justice Keller said no. And, all because of this 20 minute gap in time, Michael Richard died that day, by lethal injection. At 6 p.m.

It’s Also About Two Phone Calls

Well, after word got around that Chief Justice Keller (she is not only on the high court, she is the chief justice for the high court) had said no, and Richard had died – things began happening.

For one thing, the Commission for Judicial Conduct began a year-long investigation. And, it’s from the CJC’s results that we know a little more about what happened that day.

First, everyone at the Court of Criminal Appeals knew that the Motion for Stay was coming, because around two o’clock that afternoon, they got an email that told them it was on its way, based upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s announcement earlier that day.

The justices took a little vote amongst themselves, even before they got the Motion, and came down 5-4 that they were going to turn down the stay request when it did turn up. And then, Justice Cheryl Johnson and three other justices worked to prepare for the motion they were expecting … everyone at the court knew this motion was on its way, and that Richard was scheduled to die at six o’clock that day.

Chief Justice Keller went home to meet a repairman.

And here’s the story about the first phone call, from CJC report per the Austin American Statesman:

[Court General Counsel] Marty picked up the phone to relay the request to Keller. … It was a short conversation, but they dispute what was said. Marty recalls saying that Richard’s lawyers “wanted the court to stay open late.” Keller says Marty asked only about keeping the clerk’s office open past 5 p.m. — not the court — and that her answer reflected common practice: All clerks went home at closing time. “No,” she told Marty.

Then, the second phone call:

Shortly after 5 p.m., Keller telephoned Marty to ask whether Richard’s lawyers had filed anything. The answer was no.

It’s not clear when Justice Johnson and the other judges found out about the request for 20 minutes. And, it’s not clear why Marty routed the call to Keller, at home, instead of Justice Johnson, who was on rotation to hear the motion.

The Trial of Justice Sharon Keller

Charges have been filed against Justice Keller with the Commission for Judicial Conduct, although no trial date has been set. She’s accused of five violations of either the Texas Constitution or the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. And her fate (exoneration, reprimand, or removal) will be decided by an as-yet-unknown specially appointed judge. It will be a public proceeding.

The Impeachment of Justice Sharon Keller

Her trial may not happen for over a year, and that’s not soon enough for Fort Worth State Representative Lon Burnam. He’s filed a resolution before the Texas House, asking that the legislative body investigate these events, and if the House finds cause for impeachment, then the Texas Senate will hold an impeachment trial.

An Odd Balance

Somehow, all this seems very, very odd. At the worst, Justice Keller loses her job. She’ll get another one.

Balance that against Michael Richard.

Sources:

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/opinion/19thu2.html?_r=1

Austin American Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/22/0222keller.html

Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022009dnmetkeller.403608f.html

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals – Justice Keller web page
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/court/justice_skeller.asp

February 4th, 2009

Crime News: Judge Charlie Baird May Exonerate a Dead Man and Give Justice to Tim Cole

Tim Cole is dead.

And you should know that Tim Cole died with integrity, consistently maintaining he was innocent of the crime for which he was accused.

Now, it may be time that he finally receives justice.

Tim Cole Took the Hard Road – He Went to Jail Rather Than Deny His Innocence

Before we go into the details of what may be happening this week, think about this. Tim Cole was a young man, only 22 years old, attending Texas Tech University when he was arrested and charged with the rape of Michele Mallin.

It would have been easy — so easy, think about how the prosecutors tried to persuade him — to take a plea bargain, admit to guilt, and get probation. Tim Cole refused. He took the hard road, because he maintained he was innocent.

Later, after he was convicted and sent to prison, once again Tim Cole faced a tempting choice: admit his guilt to the parole board, and get his freedom. Once again, Tim Cole steadfastly refused. He did this — refusing the parole board’s offer — FOUR times. Again, he took the hard road, because he maintained he was innocent.

Think about that: Tim Cole chose to stay in prison on four separate occasions rather than just say he was guilty and get out on parole.

Would you do that, in his shoes? Could you do that?

Tim Cole Died at the Age of 39, After Spending 17 Years Behind Bars

In 1999, Tim Cole died at the age of 39 of complications from asthma. He’d spent 17 years behind bars rather than admit he raped Michele Mallin because Mr. Cole wouldn’t admit to a crime for which he maintained he was innocent.

Only now, maybe now, will Justice Serve Tim Cole

This Thursday, Austin District Judge Charlie Baird (formerly of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) will hear arguments from the Innocence Project that Tim Cole should be posthumously exonerated and their case will be strong: DNA evidence supports Tim Cole’s consistent claims of innocence. DNA points to another man.

Even the victim wants Justice for Tim Cole

Now 44 years old, Michele Mallin has voiced her support for the exoneration of Tim Cole. At the time of trial, she asserts that she assumed that there was other evidence beside her finger-pointing at Defendant Tim Cole to support his guilt. She says that the prosecutors back then should have done a better job.

As it stands, the rape victim’s testimony that Tim Cole was her attacker was the only evidence against him, and that proved to be enough to send him to the prison where he remained until he died.

And we all know how reliable eyewitness testimony can be. (Cough, cough, cough.) (Something to ponder: why’d the D.A.’s office, way back then, think that they had enough to go to trial in this case with just this evidence? Rat, there’s a rat somewhere …. Actually, a pack of rats. Go read all the background on the trial of this case in the sources below for details.)

Lubbock Judge Refuses Tim Cole’s Case, Austin Judge Charlie Baird Takes It Up

Admittedly, the Tim Cole case will be the first case where a dead man is exonerated because of DNA evidence. (It’s going to be a procedural dance to get this done.) That’s okay with Austin District judge Charlie Baird, who took up the gauntlet after the Lubbock County courts nixed the idea.

Quoting Judge Baird (in the Austin American Statesman):

“I am disappointed that the courts in Lubbock County did not think that there was sufficient basis to conduct a hearing,” Baird said. “I think it is incumbent upon a judge somewhere in Texas to pick up this case and give the Cole family a fair hearing and to restore the good name of their child.”

Ditto, Judge.

Judge Baird: A Refreshing Change to the Usual Reports on Texas Judges

While all too often, the bad acts of Texas judges reveal themselves and find their way into posts on this blog, it is a refreshing and joyous change to find a Texas district judge who is willing to fight for justice in this way.

Kudos and tipping the hat to Gentleman Judge Charlie Baird, and heartfelt condolences to the loved ones of Tim Cole – especially his 72 year old mother, Ruby Cole Session – along with great good wishes that finally, the name of Tim Cole will be recognized as belonging to a man of integrity, honesty, and innocence.

Sources:

Austin American Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/03/0203exonerate.html

USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-03-exoneration_N.htm

January 14th, 2009

Jail Watch: The Public Needs to Understand How Parole Officials Can Trump Juries – The Injustice to Jimmie Lee Page

Jimmie Lee Page has served almost 20 years in jail after an Austin jury found him not guilty.

(The Austin American Statesman is doing a great thing in educating the public, by its recent re-publication of a story it first reported back in 2007 – telling the story of Jimmie Lee Page. Read the full article, it’s worth your time, at the link shown below.)

How Can You Serve 20 Years in Jail After Being Found Not Guilty?

It’s easy in this country. All you have to do is be on parole for something else, because those parole officials can trump a jury faster than Michael Phelps can win a gold medal.

In Page’s case, the parole guys listened to one witness — a police detective who told them that Page was “as guilty as sin” — before they revoked Page’s parole and sent him back to the slammer. Since then, they’ve just been denying Page a right to parole whenever his case gets rotated up for review.

What Did Page Do?

Thirty-two years ago, when he was a young man (Page is now 52), Jimmy Page killed a friend of his – and he pled guilty to that crime, got a life sentence, and served 11 years in prison before he was released on parole. Page returned to Nacogdoches, Texas, to live with his mother.

He’d done nothing to violate parole, by the way. Still hasn’t.

Eight months later, Page was arrested for the local murder of a housekeeper. He insisted he was innocent, and instead of taking a plea, he went to trial where he was found innocent by a jury of his peers.

Importantly, Page’s attorney ( a veteran defense attorney with 35+ years experience) tells reporters that while a lot of his clients are indeed guilty, he truly believes that Page is innocent of the murder for which he was charged.

What’s the Evidence Against Him? The Only Key Evidence is Eyewitness Testimony of a Traumatized Boy Whose Credibility is Questionable

There was scant evidence against Page in the Nacogdoches murder case.

The key witness was an eyewitness — a child who was also a victim in the crime. The boy did pointed the finger at Page in one line-up, but this traumatized boy also pointed the finger at another man in another line-up, and described someone who looked a lot different than Page to the police artist who drew up a sketch of the assailant.

Psychological experts kept the boy from the parole hearing – the child was too fragile to give any testimony to the parole officials. So, all they heard was from their one law enforcement guy.

Two Serious Threats to Justice Here That the Public Should Know About

Kudos to the Austin American Statesman for a great article (definitely read the whole thing, the link is shown below), and for getting the following information out to the general public:

1. The American Public needs to understand that once someone is on parole, there’s very little to safeguard against injustice in parole board hearings, as the Page case typifies. These officials can trump a jury verdict without any of the evidentiary protections set in place in a criminal trial, and few know about this Star Chamber crack in the system; and

2. Eyewitness testimony in this country should not carry the weight that it is given in trials today. Countless studies have been done on how human beings do not remember things (or people) accurately and having someone point the finger on the stand should not be unilaterally taken as true. The child-victim in this case is a point in fact; psychologically harmed, he gave many different faces to his perpetrator, and as sympathetic as we all must be to his tragedies, his single voice should not be used to put a man behind bars — especially when that eyewitness account is taken by a police officer and used, hearsay though it is, as his basis for telling the parole board that a man is guilty of a crime. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Sources:

Austin American Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/archive/0415page.html

Stanford University – Journal of Legal Studies (The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony)
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

January 12th, 2009

JUDGE WATCH: Galveston Judge Samuel Kent Still Set for Trial on Jan 26 But With Big New Charges

Okay – here’s an update to an October 2008 post, and once again, I cannot make this stuff up.

It all began when the first federal district judge in our nation’s history got indicted last year for sex crimes. And, sure – of course, it had to be some judge in Texas. Geez.

So, right now, over in the Houston federal courthouse, you’ve got District Judge Samuel Kent working away after being transferred to Houston from his longtime bench in Galveston after becoming this infamous, indicted judge. And, down the hall, you’ve got the very same District Judge Samuel Kent facing trial later this month for these various sex crimes.

Yep, in the very same courthouse.

And, if that weren’t bizarre enough for you — last Friday, Judge Kent got three new charges added to his indictment which brought in a second female court employee alleging that Judge Kent had performed acts that amount to aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact. Also added, an obstruction of justice charge.

It’s reported that his attorney, Dick DeGuerin, says that these new charges aren’t true but he can’t say more than that, because there is a gag order in place.

The allegations are serious…

Gag order or not, the details of what Judge Kent allegedly did to the two women is being reported in the media (see sources, below, if you want to read all about it). Judge Kent has admitted to a single spurned kiss; the two women are claiming much more than that happened over a period of years.

This new Obstruction charge is a big deal.

Judge Kent can thank Enron and Martha Stewart for this new Obstruction of Justice charge. It’s proven itself to be a powerful and successful tool in the prosecution’s belt.

By adding this new spin to the indictment, Judge Kent not only has to defend against what two women are saying he did, but he’s got to face off against investigators and the like, who are going to tell a jury that Kent lied to them about things, thwarting their efforts.

As Martha can tell you, under an obstruction charge, you don’t have to be guilty of the crime being investigated to be guilty of obstruction. And you still face a significant punishment: on obstruction alone, Judge Kent could face 20 years imprisonment – and that’s before you begin to consider the ramifications to his legal career.

Charging Obstruction of Justice is Dangerous to Justice

Charging obstruction is a scary thing — regardless of how horrid the alleged conduct might be, having grand juries tack these charges onto indictments is getting to be pretty Big Brother-y for some: you’ve got the constitutional right not to incriminate yourself, but absent taking the 5th how much leeway does a defendant having these days in dealing with the legal authorities?

Creating criminal liability where there wasn’t any beforehand is a danger to justice, and something we all need to be watching, as many scholars are warning against prosecutors’ “creative interpretation” of the obstruction statutes.

Just something to ponder, regardless of how you feel about Ol’ Sam Kent.

What’s next?

Last anyone has reported, this case is still going to trial on January 26th. That’s 14 days from now.

Meanwhile, Judge Kent is out on his own recognizance — so when trial begins, he can just take the same morning route to the courthouse he’s been taking everyday for over a year now and park in the same parking spot.

Sources:

Abilene Reporter News
(Details on Allegations)
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/jan/07/texas-judge-pleads-innocent-to-new-sex-charges/

Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6199838.html

The Federalist Society
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1037/pub_detail.asp

United States District Court Judges Roster — Southern District of Texas
http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/district/judges/

Dallas Criminal Lawyer Blog – October 2008
http://dallaslawyer.blogspot.com/2008/10/judge-watch-galveston-federal-judge-sam.html