SCOTUS: No new trial for Charles Dean Hood

04/19/10

Permalink 01:41:25 pm, by bill Email , 406 words,   English (US)
Categories: News Clippings, Observer Opinions, Law, Crime & Punishment

SCOTUS: No new trial for Charles Dean Hood

The US Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from convicted murderer Charles Dean Hood. Hood's attorneys had asked the court to order a new trial based on the admission of the judge and District Attorney that they had previously been in an adulterous affair.

While the court's decision will mean Hood will not get a new trial on the facts of the case, a Texas Court has already ordered a new sentencing trial based on other technical issues.

Bill

===============================
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Charles Dean Hood in Case of Prosecutor and Judge Making Beast With Two Backs

Monday, April 19, 2010
From Bloomberg: By Greg Stohr

April 19 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a convicted double murderer who said his Texas trial was tainted because the judge and prosecutor previously had a sexual relationship.

The justices today left intact a Texas appeals court’s refusal to reopen Charles Dean Hood’s case.

Hood, 40, contended that the affair between Judge Verla Sue Holland and Thomas S. O’Connell Jr. had cast a “deep shadow” over the Texas criminal justice system and violated his constitutional rights. Dozens of ethicists and former judges, state officials and prosecutors -- including former FBI Director William S. Sessions -- urged the court to take up the case.

“We believe his case was marred by a fundamental misjustice,” said Andrea Keilen, the director of the Texas Defender Service, which represents Hood. She said in a statement that she was “disheartened” by the rejection.

Hood was convicted in 1990 of killing his boss and his boss’s girlfriend in the house the three shared. His lawyers say they didn’t have firm evidence of the long-rumored affair until 2008, shortly before he was scheduled to be executed.

Collin County Criminal District Attorney John R. Roach said that Hood’s lawyers had reason to suspect the affair years earlier and that they waited too long to raise the issue in court. Roach argued that Hood had previously filed seven so- called habeas corpus petitions seeking to overturn his conviction.

The issue “should have been raised, addressed and resolved many years ago,” Roach argued.

Holland and O’Connell eventually testified that they were involved in a relationship for several years in the 1980s and had been in love with one another. Both were married.

A Texas court threw out Hood’s death sentence on unrelated grounds earlier this year.
The case is Hood v. Texas, 09-8610.

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Collin County Citizen [Visitor] Email
This really is a shame for the entire justice community.

Please keep in mind that it only takes 4 votes by the Supreme Court to hear a case. And, there are clearly at least 4 conservative and 4 liberal judges on any one issue.

What this means is that of America's 9 top jurists, 33% or less believed that it should hear a case involving the conviction of a man who's prosecutor was sleeping with his judge.

Today I am discouraged in our legal system, and I am angry that our nation's highest court didn't have more courage.

I'm almost to the point that I believe the president should step in and threaten to pardon this man if a fair trial can't be had.

There is little doubt in my mind that he is guilty, but his freedom should be the public's punishment for allowing this to occur.

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

The Observer adds:

The SCOTUS Blog explains the Court's refusal to hear Hood vs. Texas as likely being:

"Among the cases denied review Monday, perhaps the most significant was Hood v. Texas (09-8610), testing whether a criminal trial is unconstitutional if the judge trying the case had previously had an intimate sexual relationship with the lead prosecutor in the trial, and the nature of the relationship was not disclosed to the parties in the trial. The Court gave no reason for by-passing the case, but it could have been because the affair had ended three years before the trial, and defense lawyers, at the time of the trial, did not raise the issue although they had heard repeated rumors of the relationship. The defense lawyers for Charles Dean Hood of Plano, Texas, formerly on death row for two murders in 1990, urged the Court to take the case to make a major statement on the integrity of the judiciary and ways to protect it. (Hood has won a new sentencing hearing in state court, based on a different challenge.)"

Bill

PermalinkPermalink 04/19/10 @ 21:25
Comment from: He should be pardoned?!?!??!? [Visitor] Email
CCC-

Let's not get carried away here. He's guilty. If he wasn't guilty, his lawyers wouldn't have waited 20 years -- right before he was to be put to death -- to raise this issue.

Don't let creative lawyering set a guilty man free.

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

The Observer comments:

Sir, your argument makes no sense. You are saying that if the sky were green, we would not have yellow crayons.

His guilt or innocence has nothing to do with the quality of his defense, nor with the reality that it took 20 years to force the trial judge and DA to admit they kept their affair secret from the defense.

You know, I strongly suspect he is guilty. But the question is, "Was his a fair trial?".

If not, does his presumed guilt negate the need for a fair trial. Or... are only the innocent entitled to fair trials.

Bill
PermalinkPermalink 04/20/10 @ 07:43
Comment from: He should be pardoned?!?!??!? [Visitor] Email
Bill-

Please view my comments in the light in which they were intended -- responding to CCC suggesting he should be pardoned.

We have a system to ensure fair trials. If it was ever suspected the he did not receive one, he had 20 years to appeal.

We've bashed this case at every step, but legally, "Collin County Justice" did what it was supposed to do.

The "Collin County Justice" that was such an embarrassment just got the ok from the Supreme Court.

Was the affair wrong? Yes. Embarrassing? Yes. Was the case handled poorly by our judicial system the last 2 years? No. Was the case handled poorly by him or his attorneys? Yes.
PermalinkPermalink 04/20/10 @ 13:19
Comment from: Dave [Visitor]
"Innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers"

Implicit in "proven guilty" is the assumption of a fair trial. Moreover, the trial must have the APPEARANCE of a fair trial. This is part of the judicial code.

When the attorneys for Hood asked to present this early on, this was denied because the judge said there was no proof. There was no proof because the judge hid the facts.

In any event, what does a time limit have to do with a death sentence if the new evidence is material?

I don't believe the courts have behaved well in the last two years. They did everything in their power to toss this hot potato around to protect one of their own from suffering the consequences of wrong doing.

At some point, this is not about Hood. This is about the right of every resident in the U.S. to have a fair trial. If they can do it to him, they can do it to you.

Hood should not be pardoned but he should get a fair trial. And the amorous ones should be called to account so that judges know there are consequences if they cover up for each other.
PermalinkPermalink 04/20/10 @ 15:07
Comment from: Collin County Citizen [Visitor] Email
I'm not advocating that the man be pardoned. I said the president should threaten to pardon him if he doesn't receive a fair trial. Of course, if presidents went around threatening to pardon folks if the Supreme Court doesn't behave right, that causes a whole host of legal problems.

But, the fact remains that this "new evidence" was like a witness didn't reveal a DWI conviction. This is a fundamental error. Certain errors, like subject matter jurisdiction, etc., cannot be waived.

It shocks me that someone can actually suggest that because too much time passed, we should ignore the affair and pretend like it was a fair trial.

And, don't tell me that just because the Supreme Court applies its stamp that justice has been served. The Supreme Court has, int he past, upheld segregation, given corporations free reign in political campaigns, and a whole host of other topics that were late seen as a mistake. Their seal means appeals are over, not a guarantee that justice has been served.

Honestly, put yourself in the shoes of a defendant and how you'd feel if the judge and prosecutor were husband and wife, on in Hood's case, mistress and cheater together. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't feel cheated, and that you can foresee a circumstance where you felt like you'd received due process of law?

If so, you're in the wrong country.
PermalinkPermalink 04/20/10 @ 16:26
Comment from: He should be pardoned?!?!??!? [Visitor] Email
I would be ticked off if found out the judge and a prosecutor had an affair. But then I would remember that I brutally killed a couple of people and suddenly it wouldn't seem like that big of a deal.
PermalinkPermalink 04/21/10 @ 13:04
Comment from: Gini [Visitor] Email
This man's innocent victims did not get a second chance. Why should the murderer?


The Observer replies....

Because we think justice more important than revenge?

Bill
PermalinkPermalink 04/22/10 @ 17:50
Comment from: Squanderville Resident [Visitor] Email
Thanks, Bill.

The "question" remains on the table,
glowing for all to see,
DOES ANYONE GET ANY JUSTICE IN COLLIN COUNTY?

How can you be sure?
PermalinkPermalink 04/23/10 @ 08:11

This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)

The Collin County Observer™

You can observe a lot by just watching.
Yogi Berra

It is my hope that this forum will serve as an acute observer of Collin County government, leading to the return of the county to those it is supposed to serve.

I will post my opinions, fair analysis, news clippings that are relevant to local issues, and your comments.

To post your comment, you may register, or you may post anonymously. Comments will be reviewed before being placed online.

Comments that I consider inappropriate will be deleted, and the commentator warned. All I ask is that discussions remain civil and courteous. The standard for comments here is "common courtesy".

Subscribers will receive an email whenever a new blog entry is posted.

Bill Baumbach

Find more discussion of CCO topics on The Collin County Observer Facebook Group.

Add to Technorati Favorites

TESTIMONIALS

"Love you to death Bill, but you're like a hemmoroid that keeps swelling and won't go away."
Rick Neudorff, past Chair Collin County GOP

"Your premise is wrong, as it often is."
John R. Roach, Collin County District Attorney

"...lost ALL objectivity in coverage long ago"
Michael Openshaw, North Texas Tea Party leader


May 2012
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 << <   > >>
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Search

Files and Links

2006 Bill's Campaign for County Commissioner

County Government

Voting Rights & Education

Indigent Legal Defense

Indigent Healthcare

Texas Legislature

Texas Blogs

Commissioners Blogs

Mobility

2007 Bond Election

2008 Budget

Collin County Discussion Boards

Courts & Judiciary

Collin County Info & Stuff

Community Life, Art & Assistance

News Media

Financial Transparency

2009 Budget

Families & Children

Demographics

2010 Budget

Public Meeting Broadcasts & Videos

2010 Election

2010 Finance Reports

Bill's stroke journal

  • First Journal ]more

    Permalink

XML Feeds

What is RSS?

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 19

powered by b2evolution free blog software