Consequences of Supreme Court not hearing cases... Charles Dean Hood

[mkrishnan]

http://www.slate.com/id/2251663/

Slate talks about this case, which was rejected for the SC docket...

Originally Posted by Slate

When the U.S. Supreme Court denied Charles Dean Hood's appeal last week, it was done in a one-sentence, unsigned order. Hood is a Texas death-row inmate who was convicted of murdering two people in 1990. Long after the conclusion of the trial, it became clear that his trial judge and prosecutor had been secretly involved in a years-long extramarital affair. Because they were both married, they denied the affair—even to Hood's death-penalty lawyers. After the clandestine relationship finally came to light, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Hood's challenge in two curt sentences last September, finding that his lawyers had waited too long to raise the issue on appeal. How Hood was to have raised the conflict of interest when the existence of the affair was not conclusively established until 2008, when the judge and prosecutor were forced to admit it under oath, is not explained.

Hood has already been granted a new sentencing hearing because the Texas appeals court has acknowledged that the jury instructions were improper, but prosecutors say they will again seek the death penalty. In any event, resentencing Hood doesn't resolve the fundamental problem with the case. The issue here is whether any reasonable person would believe that a criminal trial at which one's prosecutor and judge are secretly in love could ever be fair. And that's the issue the courts keep refusing to address.

Last year, the Supreme Court handed down a blockbuster opinion in Caperton v. Massey, a case testing whether a justice on West Virginia's highest court should have recused himself from hearing an appeal in which one of the parties—Don Blankenship of A.T. Massey Coal Co.—had just donated $3 million to his judicial election campaign. Writing for a sharply divided 5–4 court, Justice Anthony Kennedy called the appearance of a conflict of interest in this case so "extreme" that the judge's failure to recuse himself undermined the constitutional right to due process. The Hood appeal to the Supreme Court essentially asked whether a judge might be as compromised by great sex as by big money. In his filings, Hood argued that the trial judge's "long-term, intimate sexual relationship and later close friendship with [the prosecutor] attuned her to his professional and personal interests and made those interests her own." Hood said that unlike the Caperton case, in which Blankenship's financial support of the judge was a matter of public knowledge, the Texas judge was more compromised because she kept her relationship a secret.

Whether or not this person is guilty of the crime for which he was tried, this seems deeply disturbing to me, on multiple levels. This is far from the only case in recent memory where there was judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, and too many of them have not been resolved. A judge that violates the trust of the bench, to me, is committing an act of treason. I honestly don't think there's a much more serious abuse of domestic law than that. They shouldn't just be allowed to engage in this level of misconduct, especially in a capital punishment case, without consequences for their behavior.

The Slate article also brings up the good point. If these kinds of legitimate legal issues are scuttlebutted because the SC decides not to hear them, admittedly for a variety of reasons ranging from the lack of a clear legal issue to simply lacking time on their docket, then justice is just not being done. Expanding the supreme court doesn't seem like a solution to me; I'm not sure what the right solution is. But to just say, meh, we're not going to talk about it, is not okay.

[leekohler]

Wow- it just gets crazier, doesn't it? Just when you think you've heard it all.

And why does this stuff always seem to happen in Texas?

[Lord Blackadder]

When the U.S. Supreme Court denied Charles Dean Hood's appeal last week, it was done in a one-sentence, unsigned order.

That was the key sentence for me - it implies a total lack of consideration. I think the SCOTUS is seriously dropping the ball by not even explaining itself.

I understand it's a very busy court, but it's called upon to make all sorts of life-and-death judgments. Maybe we need younger judges with more stamina for work.

[Rodimus Prime]

Well providing he is on death row in the state of Texas he already got one appeal and re-trail. In Texas if you are sentience to death it is an automatic appeal the first time. They get a new judge and jury.

[mkrishnan]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

Well providing he is on death row in the state of Texas he already got one appeal and re-trail. In Texas if you are sentience to death it is an automatic appeal the first time. They get a new judge and jury.

I actually don't completely understand this part. I understand that he had an appeal that was related to DNA evidence and forensics, and this was processed and denied, but that is not the same thing as a re-trial, and at that time he and his defense team also did not know about the relationship between the judge and the prosecutor. I cannot find anything in any searches I've done that suggest that he's had a retrial.

[Zombie Acorn]

The guy murdered two people, his appeal was denied (DNA evidence was tride and true) out to the gallows.

Charge the judge to the full extent of the law.

[mkrishnan]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Charge the judge to the full extent of the law.

Is there any extent to which the law allows the judge to be charged? I thought they had fairly wide-ranging immunity from being charged for this kind of misconduct....

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by mkrishnan

Is there any extent to which the law allows the judge to be charged? I thought they had fairly wide-ranging immunity from being charged for this kind of misconduct....

Why would you think that? Clearly, if he was having an affair with the prosecutor then it is a conflict of interest for him to be serving as the judge for this particular trial.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by mkrishnan

Is there any extent to which the law allows the judge to be charged? I thought they had fairly wide-ranging immunity from being charged for this kind of misconduct....

Disbarment is a possibility that should be used IMO.

[mkrishnan]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

Why would you think that? Clearly, if he was having an affair with the prosecutor then it is a conflict of interest for him to be serving as the judge for this particular trial.

Being recused from a trial is hardly a punishment.

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Disbarment is a possibility that should be used IMO.

Yeah, there is that. I guess, what I'm saying, is that the penalty should be much, much harsher. I don't approve of Texas's death penalty, but a judge who does something like this would be an appropriate example of a place to levy a capital punishment, in my mind.

[kavika411]

Originally Posted by mkrishnan

Is there any extent to which the law allows the judge to be charged? I thought they had fairly wide-ranging immunity from being charged for this kind of misconduct....

Good question. I don't know about being charged - by which I assume you mean criminally charged. Without having read about the situation, I'm betting his state's Bar will, as a disciplinary measure, remove him from being judge at a minimum and will likely suspend or disbar him. Beyond that, I'm guessing he will be immune (vis-a-vis "state agent immunity") from civil suit or criminal charges.

As for the one-sentence opinion that someone mentioned, nothing to that really. That's what appellate courts do all the time. It's their way of saying that the lower ruling stands, and a legal opinion won't add to this or future dialogues.

Looking at it broadly, it appears to be an issue of timeliness of appeal. The idea of "staying" or lengthening an appeal due to later-discovered evidence is - right or wrong - generally frowned upon. Here, it was not actual evidence either, but a late discovery of a possible conflict of interest. I doubt there are any stays on the books for that kind of thing. Unfortunate but likely true.

One last thought - again, without having read up on the situation - I assume he was actually convicted by a jury, and not the judge. Absent any clear instances where the prosecutor curried favorable, substantial rulings (such as introduction/exclusion of significant evidence) because of the relationship, the conflict probably did not impact the actual trial/conviction.

Just some thoughts.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by mkrishnan

Yeah, there is that. I guess, what I'm saying, is that the penalty should be much, much harsher. I don't approve of Texas's death penalty, but a judge who does something like this would be an appropriate example of a place to levy a capital punishment, in my mind.

In extreme cases such as this I agree, but getting disbarred as a judge is a pretty harsh penalty.

[mactastic]

It really shouldn't matter. Everyone deserves a fair trial, and it's hard to say that this guy got a fair trial when the judge and the prosecutor were going at it on the down-low. If the evidence is that solid, what's the problem with giving it another go without the taint of a love affair hanging over the sentence?

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by mactastic

It really shouldn't matter. Everyone deserves a fair trial, and it's hard to say that this guy got a fair trial when the judge and the prosecutor were going at it on the down-low. If the evidence is that solid, what's the problem with giving it another go without the taint of a love affair hanging over the sentence?

Its a waste of money, the DNA evidence was reaffirmed and this guy murdered two people. Death penalty.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Its a waste of money, the DNA evidence was reaffirmed and this guy murdered two people. Death penalty.

I'm pretty sure you don't get the death penalty just for killing. There are some pretty tough requirements to be murdered by the state.

[.Andy]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Its a waste of money, the DNA evidence was reaffirmed and this guy murdered two people. Death penalty.

It's quite obvious across a number of threads now that you're far more interested in punishing people than you are in justice. Given the article justice has not been served nor will killing this individual serve justice.

And again, the only thing more cowardly than killing a defenseless human being is cheerleading a defenseless human being's death.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by NT1440

I'm pretty sure you don't get the death penalty just for killing. There are some pretty tough requirements to be murdered by the state.

This is Texas, they put the j in justice.

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

This is Texas, they put the j in justice.

PFFFFT...

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Its a waste of money, the DNA evidence was reaffirmed and this guy murdered two people. Death penalty.

The right to a fair trial is guranteed in the constitution...I think you believe in the constitution.

[mactastic]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Its a waste of money, the DNA evidence was reaffirmed and this guy murdered two people. Death penalty.

Then make the judge and prosecutor pay for the costs of the new trial. Seems only fair, since their actions caused this problem. A little personal responsibility would be nice now and then, no?

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by mactastic

Then make the judge and prosecutor pay for the costs of the new trial. Seems only fair, since their actions caused this problem. A little personal responsibility would be nice now and then, no?

Theres no reason for another trial, the jury made the decision that he was guilty, not the judge. The DNA evidence was re-examined for an appeal. If you want a judge to re-examine whether the case was worthy of death I don't see too much of a problem, but its likely if he only killed two people that he did it rather maliciously to get the death penalty.

[mactastic]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Theres no reason for another trial, the jury made the decision that he was guilty, not the judge. The DNA evidence was re-examined for an appeal. If you want a judge to re-examine whether the case was worthy of death I don't see too much of a problem, but its likely if he only killed two people that he did it rather maliciously to get the death penalty.

It doesn't matter. The principle of justice is at stake here. You can't set a precedent that a prosecutor and judge can have a secret relationship, and that it is acceptable to allow such a thing to happen. If the evidence is as strong as you say it is, and the costs of the trial are borne by those who necessitated a re-trial, then there should be no reason not to make sure this is done by the book.

Even if it didn't alter the outcome in this case, it will be cited as precedent the next time this happens, and if the precedent is that there is no recourse to another trial, that's what will likely continue to be the outcome.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by mactastic

It doesn't matter. The principle of justice is at stake here. You can't set a precedent that a prosecutor and judge can have a secret relationship, and that it is acceptable to allow such a thing to happen. If the evidence is as strong as you say it is, and the costs of the trial are borne by those who necessitated a re-trial, then there should be no reason not to make sure this is done by the book.

Even if it didn't alter the outcome in this case, it will be cited as precedent the next time this happens, and if the precedent is that there is no recourse to another trial, that's what will likely continue to be the outcome.

I have to agree here. This situation stinks like 2 week old fish. And while it is very likely that the outcome won't change, I think a new trial is in order. The state should pay the cost, and the judge and prosecutor should be disbarred.

[Gelfin]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

This is Texas, they put the j in justice.

And well they might. They certainly have a surplus of them in juvenile jackass judges.

"Justice" doesn't just mean beating up bad guys. It means requiring the state to prove its case immaculately. Letting the state get sloppy just because you're convinced a particular defendant doesn't deserve a fair trial jeopardizes everybody.

[itcheroni]

Originally Posted by .Andy

It's quite obvious across a number of threads now that you're far more interested in punishing people than you are in justice. Given the article justice has not been served nor will killing this individual serve justice.

And again, the only thing more cowardly than killing a defenseless human being is cheerleading a defenseless human being's death.

One of the first things I learned in law school was that the law wasn't about justice, it is about correctness in regards to our legal system. Even if a law or rule is terribly wrong or has unintended consequences, everyone must follow it until changed by legislation or the SC. This made me very depressed but makes sense to lawyers (and I honestly don't know a better way either). The SCOTUS gets maybe 2000+ requests for cert and they take about 80 I think. I think they used to take up to 150 in past courts but it is essentially up to them. Even if all members of the SC believed a case was decided incorrectly and there was tremendous injustice, they probably won't grant cert. The cases they select tend to be farther reaching. They were probably thinking, what are the number of people who would be effected by this particular issue? Probably not many. Our current Court tends to take a lot of more business oriented cases. I heard that straight from the mouth of John G Roberts. I am not a fan of our current or recent SC.

The judge though, committed no crime, so there is nothing to charge him with. I'm not sure what the State Bar Ass. could or would do. The judge could be adamant in his ability to be impartial and the Bar could agree with him. I remember Scalia was asked to recuse himself a few years back after spending a weekend vacation with Cheney (I forgot the case but it involved Cheney) and he just laughed. Of course it's not the same thing as Scalia ***** Cheney, lol.