The Collin County Observer

Texas justice is once again the focus of national attention - with Collin County's particular brand of injustice, albeit supported by a discredited Court of Criminal Appeals, held up to near universal contempt.

Our District Attorney, John Roach is wrong, dead wrong in continuing to fight against allowing Charles Dean Hood a fair trial.

If Mr. Roach is incapable of not protecting his old colleagues and friends, then he should turn over the prosecution of this appeal to someone who can appreciate the notion of a fair trial - even for those he thinks are guilty.

I've been watching our courts long enough to know that we do have a few fine jurists here in Collin County and on our appeals courts. These judges are the ones who need to take a public stand against continuing the protection of lousy or corrupt judges and of overly zealous prosecutors, or they should be voted out of office.

Bill

======================================

Local and national voices on the Charles Dean Hood decision:

The NY Times:

Judge-Prosecutor Affair, but No New Trial in Texas Death Penalty Case

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
Published: September 16, 2009

The highest criminal court in Texas ruled Wednesday that a man facing the death penalty for murder could not have a new trial despite a love affair between the prosecutor and the judge who tried his case.

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said the convicted man, Charles D. Hood, should have raised in earlier appeals the argument that the love affair had tainted his trial.

The affair had been rumored for years in Collin County, just north of Dallas, but was confirmed only a year ago when Mr. Hood’s lawyers compelled the judge, Verla Sue Holland, and the prosecutor, Thomas S. O’Connell Jr., to give depositions under oath. Both officials had since retired.

The case has stirred controversy across the country. Several former judges, prosecutors and experts on legal ethics have said that the affair makes it impossible to know if Mr. Hood received a fair trial and that it should be cause for a new proceeding.

But Wednesday’s decision overturned the findings of a district court judge who had found that Mr. Hood should be allowed a hearing on a new trial. The decision did not discuss whether the affair had prejudiced his first trial; instead, the court rejected Mr. Hood’s claim on the ground that he should have raised it when he first appealed his 1990 conviction.

Mr. Hood’s lawyers responded to that finding by saying they had long tried to substantiate rumors of the affair. They also accused the majority of ignoring confirmation of it in the testimony of Ms. Holland and Mr. O’Connell.

Ms. Holland went on to serve on the Court of Criminal Appeals with all but one of the current members. “This decision by a court where eight of the nine judges once shared the bench with Judge Holland will only add to the perception that justice is skewed in Texas,” said Andrea Keilen, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, which represents Mr. Hood.

Ms. Keilen said Mr. Hood, 40, was considering appealing the ruling to the federal courts. In addition, he still has one outstanding claim before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, an argument that before the sentencing, the jury should have received more information about his mental condition.

John Rolater, chief of the appellate division in the Collin County district attorney’s office, said of the ruling, “We look at it as a significant procedural victory.”

read more....

======================================
The Dallas Morning News editorial board:

Editorial: Ruling in Hood case degrades court system

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Texas' highest criminal court's latest dismaying ruling in the scandalous Charles Dean Hood murder case can be interpreted with five words: "Anything goes in Texas justice."

The ruling somehow manages to waltz past the fact that Collin County's trial judge in the capital murder case had been cavorting in bed with the district attorney. Instead, the split decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals turned on a procedural issue in letting the death penalty verdict stand against Hood.

The clearly compromised impartiality of the trial judge, Verla Sue Holland, thus is rendered legally beside the point, in contravention of the Texas Constitution.

This is not a plea to save the life of a man who may be innocent of the charges against him. Indeed, the state produced overwhelming evidence against Hood in the cold robbery and murder of Ronald Williamson and Tracie Lynn Wallace in Plano.

Rather, the issue is the integrity of the Texas court system and the appeals court's interest in flushing out the stench of corrupted justice. Sadly, the court has proved itself unwilling.

Hood was hours away from execution in June 2008 as judges in McKinney? and Austin played hot potato with newly presented assertions about a secret tryst. Prosecutors argued that there had been ample time to complain about an affair, if there was one.

State District Judge Greg Brewer thought it was important to find out if there had been, and he ordered Judge Holland and former District Attorney Tom O'Connell to cop to the truth. It was ugly. The couple admitted under oath that they had indeed concealed a past intimate relationship at the time of the 1990 trial, in which he argued before her in open court.

Judge Brewer was rightfully disturbed and concluded later that the state's "hands are unclean" and that Hood should be able to pursue the complaint about compromised justice.

In an affront to the sense of fair play, the appeals court bought the argument that it was too late to bring up the affair. If there's any cause for optimism, we find it in the fact that three of the nine judges disagreed with the majority and would have allowed the complaint to be considered.

A trial involving a nasty little secret between judge and prosecutor cannot produce justice. It's a stacked deck. The Texas Constitution guarantees fairness out of Texas courts, and it's a travesty that the state's highest criminal court doesn't see it....

link to editorial....

======================================
Off the Kuff

CCA gives its approval to hot judge-on-prosecutor action

September 17th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner

I don’t know how else to characterize this latest atrocity from the biggest joke in Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals.

link to Off the Kuff....

======================================

Grits for Breakfast
Disgrace! CCA lets stand egregious official misconduct in capital murder case

Let's face it: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has become a flat-out embarrassment.

Most recently, the CCA decided not to rule whether a judge and prosecutor having an affair during a capital murder trial tainted the process in the Charles Dean Hood case, the Dallas News reports today. Notably the trial judge, who concealed the affair for many years before being forced to reveal it in a civil deposition, went on to serve with eight of the nine members on the court as a judge on the CCA, so it's impossible to avoid the impression that they're dismissing Hood's claim on procedural grounds to avoid ruling on the merits of their colleague's egregious misconduct.

The ostensible reason for their ruling was that Hood didn't raise the issue soon enough. But no one denies that's because the prosecutor and judge in the Collin County case concealed their misconduct for years and the affair could not be reliably proven until 2008. According to the News:

[Hood's attorney David] Dow said he was stunned by the ruling. When the Court denied a stay on the issue last year, "it denied a stay because it said ‘There's no proof. Come back to us when you have some proof.'"

The service came back with that proof – acknowledgment from the two principals that an affair had occurred, "And what do they say?" Dow asked. "‘Tough, you lose any way."

The ruling came despite the fact that District Judge Greg Brewer had recommended Hood be allowed to pursue the claim, going so far as to say the state's "hands are unclean."

Brewer said Hood's legal team exercised "reasonable diligence" during the years, and that prosecutors' claim that the defense had moved too slowly was not valid.

Between the episode that caused the Judicial Conduct Commission to instigate removal proceedings against Presiding Judge Sharon Keller, a series of embarrassing, high-profile smackdowns by federal courts, and now this tacit approval of egregious official misconduct, these folks seem utterly oblivious to the need for the public to have confidence in the justice system. A majority of CCA judges don't seem to realize the extent to which they're disgracing themselves and shaming the entire state's legal community by indulging in such self serving abnegations of justice.

Surely the CCA is the biggest embarrassment in all of Texas state government - arguably without even a close second.

read more....

======================================

Urban Grounds

Charles Dean Hood: One Step Closer to Another Execution Date

Charles Dean Hood is an unrepentant, remorseless, murdering degenerate. He’s been on death row at the Polunsky Unit in Texas since 1990 for the murder of Roland Williamson, 40, and his 26 year-old girlfriend, Traci Lynn Wallace in Plano, TX.

The DNA evidence (Hood’s bloody fingerprints all over the crime scene) and the circumstantial evidence (after the murder, Hood pawned the victims’ jewelry, cashed the victim’s checks, used the victim’s credit cards, and was caught 800 miles from Plano driving the victim’s truck) were strong enough for a jury to convict Hood of the duel murders and sentence him to death.

He’s pulled every trick in the book since then to win stays of execution and to postpone his inevitable date with the gurney and a sharp needle full of potassium chloride.

But it looks like his games might have come to an end today as the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas has denied his latest appeal — where he was asking for a new trial for alleging that the prosecutor and his trial judge were having an affair.

read more....

======================================

Crunchy con, Conservative politics and religion
by Rod Dreher

Texas in-justice rides again
Wednesday September 16, 2009

Last time you heard from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was probably when Presiding Judge Sharon Keller refused to hear a last-minute appeal from an inmate set to be executed that night, because the office closed at five. Tough noogies, Mister! The man went to his death that night. That one set off a firestorm both in Texas and nationwide; Judge Keller is now fighting for her professional reputation.
Today the state's top appeals court has ruled in another death penalty case. At issue was whether the fact that the trial judge was secretly canoodling with the prosecutor resulted in the defendant (who was convicted and sentenced to die) receiving an unfair trial....

I'm not saying that I think the guy deserves a new trial. I'm saying that to refuse to rule on this scandalous case on procedural grounds is, well, gutless.

link to Crunchy Con....

======================================

CBS News
Andrew Cohen's Court Watch

Texas Court Whitewashes Conflict of Interest Case
September 17, 2009

If you want to know what I really think about the injustice Texas is currently perpetuating upon the person of one Charles Dean Hood, at left, let me put it to you this way: even if Osama bin Laden himself were on trial for mass murder, with Hitler, Stalin and Timothy James McVeigh? as his co-defendants, I still would think it was wrong to allow a capital trial where the judge and the prosecutor were or had been lovers.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Wednesday whitewashed -- poof, like pixie dust!-- one of the worst examples of conflict-of-interest I have ever seen. The same court that recently defied the United States Supreme Court dismissed in a three-page, fact-less, analysis-free opinion an appeal by lawyers for a convicted murderer who, like any one of us accused (or convicted) of murder, has a right to a fair trial by unbiased and professional agents of the government.

I have little sympathy for Hood. It may be that jurors in his second trial convict him as quickly as jurors in his first trial did. He may be guilty beyond all doubt, let alone reasonable doubt. I don't know. And really, it doesn't matter.

His guilt or his innocence does not and should not excuse the solemn duties of prosecutor and judge to grant him a trial free of even the perception of gross impropriety or unfairness. All of us deserve that right, including those of us who are accused of the most heinous crimes. In fact, those people probably need it most.

But this week a group of state court judges, with only one lone dissenter in the whole Lone Star state, gave a free pass to the trial judge, Verla Sue Holland, and the prosecutor, Thomas S. O'Connell, Jr., who handled the Hood murder trial.

The appeals court judges did so despite the fact that Holland and O'Connell had kept their affair quiet throughout the whole trial, which resulted in Hood's conviction of capital murder for the deaths of Ronald Williamson and Tracie Lynn Wallace. Judge and prosecutor didn't tell the truth until quite recently, in the past year, and only because they were under oath. Worse, when caught, they blamed Hood for not discovering their secret for 18 years.

If such a thing were to happen in, say, Maine or Montana, it would be a story with enormous national reach. I mean: you only have to ask the question: "If you were on trial, would you want your judge and prosecutor sleeping or having slept together?" to know the impact. But, sadly, it's old news. The nation has come to expect this sort of nonsense from this particular Texas court. On several occasions, in fact, it has openly defied the United States Supreme Court when it comes to death penalty cases.....

Link to Court Watch....

======================================

The Majority opinion of the Texas court of Criminal Appeals

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS


WR-41,168-11
EX PARTE CHARLES DEAN HOOD
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W296-80233-90 IN THE 366TH DISTRICT COURT

COLLIN COUNTY

Per Curiam. COCHRAN,.J., filed a dissenting statement in which PRICE and HOLCOMB, JJ., joined.

O R D E R

This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5.

On September 7, 1990, Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues in such a manner that a sentence of death was imposed. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Applicant's initial application for writ of habeas corpus was denied. Applicant filed a subsequent application in the trial court on May 24, 2004. The subsequent application was dismissed.

Applicant filed a second subsequent application on June 22, 2005. We remanded to the convicting court for resolution of the claim. When the case was returned to this Court, we held that Applicant, in fact, had not met the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5, for consideration of subsequent claims and dismissed his application.

On June 12, 2008, Applicant filed another subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus and an original application for writ of habeas corpus. In the applications, Applicant asserted that he was denied a fair trial because of an alleged romantic relationship between the trial judge and the prosecutor that Applicant claimed was "common knowledge" at the time of trial. We dismissed the Article 11.071 application and denied leave to file the original application. On June 17, 2008, we denied a second original application for writ of habeas corpus. On August 20, 2008, the clerk of the 296th District Court forwarded a subsequent writ application to this Court as required by Article 11.071, § 5(b). This Court dismissed the application.

On September 8, 2008, we received another subsequent writ as well as other motions in the case. In an order issued on September 9, 2008, this Court denied a motion to recuse and dismissed the subsequent application. We also determined that, because of developments in the law regarding nullification instructions, it would be prudent to reconsider the decision we issued in dismissing Applicant's second subsequent writ application. Accordingly, we granted his motion to stay his execution so that we could accomplish that task.

Applicant makes one allegation in the instant subsequent application: that he was denied a fair trial because of a romantic relationship between the trial judge and the prosecutor. On November 19, 2008, we remanded this cause and ordered the trial court to gather evidence and make recommendations on two issues: (1) whether the doctrine of laches bars the consideration of Applicant's claim; and, (2) whether Applicant meets the dictates of Article 11.071, § 5. We have reviewed the application and the trial court's recommendations. We find that the allegation fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a). Accordingly, the application is dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.071, § 5(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009

Link to opinion....

======================================

Dissenting opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS


NO. WR-41,168-11
EX PARTE CHARLES DEAN HOOD, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM CAUSE NO. W296-80233-90 IN THE 366TH DISTRICT COURT

COLLIN COUNTY

Cochran, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Price and Holcomb, JJ., joined.

OPINION

I respectfully dissent to the Court's Order dismissing applicant's claim alleging that he was denied a constitutionally fair trial because of a romantic relationship between the trial judge and the prosecutor. I believe that, based upon newly developed facts, applicant has satisfied the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a). I would remand this application to the habeas court to make further factual findings and recommendations concerning the merits of the claim.

On November 18, 2008, we remanded this application to the habeas court to gather evidence and make recommendations on whether the doctrine of laches barred consideration of applicant's claim; and whether applicant had otherwise met the dictates of Article 11.071, § 5(a). The habeas judge complied, gathering the evidence and making extensive findings of fact that are supported by the record. Although one might disagree with some of those findings, I am not at liberty to disregard them when they are supported by the record. Those factual findings included the following:

* 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.

Thus, all of applicant's efforts had resulted in nothing but the development of unsubstantiated rumors. Rumors and gossip, no matter how widespread, how detailed, or how extravagant, are not facts. It was not until applicant obtained a court order requiring Judge Holland and Mr. O'Connell to give depositions pursuant to Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure that he was able to establish the actual facts that underlie his claim.....

It was only when the depositions of September 8, 2008, established the fact of a previous, sporadic, intimate relationship between the trial judge and the prosecutor, that applicant could legitimately assert his claim. He did so in this habeas application, filed on September 25, 2008, which we remanded on November 19, 2008.....

The habeas judge also concluded that applicant's "unsuccessful efforts to obtain concrete evidence" of the relationship could not be attributed to his failure to exercise reasonable diligence, but was "explained by the principals' longstanding efforts to keep the affair hidden." These conclusions are supported by the record.....

In sum, I would accept the habeas judge's findings of fact (though not his conclusions of law) as being supported by the record, and I would remand this case to the habeas court for development of the merits of applicant's claim.

link to opinion....

======================================

from Hood's motion for a writ of habeas corpus (2008):

The motion to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals begins with this statement:

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

“The truth has a long fuse.” – unknown

The truth was deliberately concealed in this case for nearly twenty years.

On September 8-9, 2008, the fortress of silence that had long protected the Honorable Verla Sue Holland and the former Collin County District Attorney Thomas S. O’Connell, Jr., collapsed. Despite the vehement opposition of the current Collin County District Attorney, a state court judge ordered Judge Holland and Mr. O’Connell to submit to depositions. They testified under oath that they had a clandestine, intimate sexual relationship in the years immediately leading up to Applicant Charles Dean Hood’s capital murder trial. This revelation casts a deep shadow over justice in this case.

That a judge charged with avoiding the appearance of bias and a prosecutor tasked with doing justice would allow their desire for secrecy to trump their sworn constitutional duties is a stunning display of arrogance and the corrupting influence of power. That others in a position to correct this injustice condoned the principals’ generation-long silence in a death penalty case is unconscionable. Mr. Hood survived five execution dates before the truth was disclosed. No one should escape blame for this reprehensible record that has eroded the public’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary.

On June 17, 2008, Mr. Hood was minutes away from being executed. No individual or institution – not the Attorney General of Texas, not the current Collin County District Attorney, not the habeas court, not even this Court – gave any credence to Mr. Hood’s evidence of an affair between Judge Holland and Mr. O’Connell. The previous day, this Court had dismissed Mr. Hood’s subsequent habeas petition raising the judicial bias claim as abusive.

read the entire writ....

======================================

The Texas Attorney General
September 3, 2008

"Unsubstantiated allegations have arisen regarding the relationship between the trial court judge and the prosecuting attorney in Hood's case. As Attorney General, I believe that the unique issues in this case, which involve the impartiality and fairness of his trial, warrant thorough review before his sentence is carried out. Tomorrow, the Office of Attorney General will file an amicus brief asking the trial court to fully review the matter, even if doing so requires delaying of the defendant's execution."

read story on the Collin County Observer....

======================================