If you’re shaking your head in disbelief at this week’s ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals — well, join the crowd.
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 Per Curiam, Not to be Published.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:
- Judge Verla Sue Holland of the 296th Judicial District Court of Collin County, presided over Hood’s capital murder trial.
- The elected District Attorney of Collin County, Thomas S. O’Connell, Jr., participated in the prosecution of Hood for capital murder.
- Judge Holland and Mr. O’Connell were involved in an intimate sexual relationship prior to Hood’s capital murder trial.
- 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.
- During these proceedings, Mr. O’Connell never disclosed his relationship with Judge Holland to Hood.
- 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.
- 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.
- Ms. Francis was unable to develop any concrete evidence of the affair.
- 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.
- On June 3, 2008, Hood received the affidavit of Matthew Goeller, a former assistant district attorney in Collin County, Texas.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 ….”
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.
A matter that needs investigated
On case#VA107160
People Vs buddy lee George
Norwalk superior court norwalk California division S
Judge the Honorable Roger Ito
Los Angeles county district attorney Kang.
A case that can be proved as unconstitutional due to the following
1.) I was denied my due process rights.
2.) the district attorney had me charged with prison priors and strikes that I did not have and it was not until after the verdict did she admit her mistakes.
3.) I was denied to confront witnesses I supoened 5 officers and only one showed up.
4.) the only witness that showed up was detective hakala from Whittier police department he was the lead detective and expert witness.
5.) the was bias with the processing of evidence he used his own lab.
6.) he lied under oath by saying he removed the drugs before the pre search video because he had a dog.
7.) the evidence in the case had been destroyed before the trial
Evidence was destroyed 5-29-09
The verdict was read on 8-15-09
8.) the attorney that represented me right before the trial caused a conflict of interest by violating attorney client privilege by having a meeting with the city of la mirada without my permission nor knowledge were he discussed my case were he was convinced by the city saying I should take a deal under the condition I move out of la mirada when I get out of prison.
9.) Henry salcido also told me at one point he didn’t care If I was innocent or guilty I should take a deal.
10.) he also told me at one point he was best friends with steve Cooley and if I gave him $180.000 and sign over the deed to our home he could make the case disappear.
11.) their was two retired district attorneys that were working for Henry salcidos law firm that were also over familiar with sheriffs and narcotics department that were involved in my case.
12.) through the whole case the la mirada mayor and council members had law enforcement harassing me their was about 300 or more calls made to law enforcement with the intent to have me harassed
13.) I can also prove false imprisonment.
14.) I was charged with possession for sales when no drugs were ever found to be in my possessing neither was any money ever recovered and according to the detective he found 13 dollars worth of drugs in our home all together in separate bags.
15.) it was unconstitutional for detective hakala to target me when their was 5 occupants living in our home at the time.
16.) the search warrant he used to get in our home the day he supposedly found the drugs was stamped denied.
17.) the second search warrant had a type -o- error and the name on the search warrant was Walter Eugene Farris a guy that I don’t know and neither did any one els that lived in our home and he had never been in our home.
18.)The attorney that represented me during the trial had not been given enough to to familiarize her self with my case the judge refused to give her time to overlook the case.
19.) after we picked the jurors one of the jurors was prejudice he said no matter what he would find me guilty because he hates drug dealers the judge still allowed juror # 19 to hang out with all the other jurors until he was replaced.
The following needs to be investigated
1.) violation of due process rights
2.) my state and federal rights were violated.
3.) false imprisonment
4.) harassment
5.) negligent
6.) malpractice
7.) wrongful conviction
8.) officer misconduct
9.) judicial misconduct
10.) cruel and unusual punishment. Email below evidence when the evidence had been destroyed a email from detective hakala to district attorney kang.
11.) the city of la mirada offered to buy our home at cost saying under the condition I couldn’t live in la mirada nor Whittier.
12.)la mirada law enforcement was raiding our home practically daily.
13.) before this case started detective jerry Reyes told me as he handed me his card with his hand writing on it that if I dident help him he would fuck me.
14.) detective hakala and district attorney kang kept inflicting lies on the jury.
Buddy George – VA107160From: joanne alberry
View Contact To: LAURIE YTARTE —————–
————————————————————-
– Laurie,here is the email from the Detective
telling the court that all the property was
destroyed. Sorry about all of it. Feel free to mail
me any payments you can at my office address
4229 Main St Suite 4 Riverside CA 92501 I will
let you know when I find an attorney who will
take on a governemtn entity. good luck to you
and Buddy,Joanne ———- Forwarded message
———-From: Date: Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:23
AMSubject: Fw: Buddy George – VA107160To:
joannealberry@gmail.com Hi Joanne, Per our
conversation, here is the email from Detective
Hakala confirming that the evidence was
destroyed. I will request that our matter be taken
off calendar today. Thanks. ———————-
Forwarded by Miriam Kang/DAUsers/NLADA on
09/25/2009 07:22 AM ————————— To:
cc: Subject: RE: Buddy George – VA107160 I
contacted our central property and the items
seized in the Buddy George case (408-15814-
0460-184) were dispoed on 05-29-09. Any other
questions just let me know. Eric ———————
———————————————————–
From: MKang@da.lacounty.gov
[mailto:MKang@da.lacounty.gov]Sent: Thu
9/24/2009 2:49 PMTo: Hakala, Eric J.Subject:
Buddy George – VA107160 Hi Detective Hakala,
Just as a reminder, please email me a letter
confirming that the the property booked into
evidence for this case has been disposed of and
the date of disposal. Thanks so much!
Sincerely,Miriam KangDeputy District
AttorneyTel: 562-807-7211
Thanks for each of your hard work on this web page. Debby loves managing internet research and it is easy to see why. I learn all about the lively way you convey both useful and interesting guidelines on the website and as well encourage participation from people on that matter while my simple princess has always been understanding a great deal. Enjoy the remaining portion of the new year. You have been performing a dazzling job.