tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post3487014034869350857..comments2024-03-15T05:45:01.402-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: CCA orders Yogurt Shop retrial based on possibility of false confessionsGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-79032949405759446722010-09-11T12:06:07.289-05:002010-09-11T12:06:07.289-05:00Where are you? Have you closed up shop? I didn&#...Where are you? Have you closed up shop? I didn't hear/read anything. The Yogurt Shop Trial: Judge Lynch did not allow the defense their witnesses to testify that the confession of Michael Scott was coerced. I was there.Grandmomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-26950342321672867242009-06-12T00:59:01.278-05:002009-06-12T00:59:01.278-05:00@anon 6/3/09: This particular post was written as ...@anon 6/3/09: This particular post was written as if there was new information. It wasn't. Merely reprinted articles in the Austin paper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-23288322543648544562009-06-10T21:35:16.773-05:002009-06-10T21:35:16.773-05:00http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-...http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-would-innocent-person-confess_24.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-50009315705706210382009-06-03T17:27:36.108-05:002009-06-03T17:27:36.108-05:00Of course it came down in 2006! Why else has Sprin...Of course it came down in 2006! Why else has Springsteen been in the news for the last year about the DNA wrangling in anticipation of a RETRIAL!?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-20339568152068046972009-06-03T10:14:40.099-05:002009-06-03T10:14:40.099-05:00This decision came down in May 2006. The Statesman...This decision came down in May 2006. The <i>Statesman</i> decided to reprint several articles in preparation for the potential upcoming Michael Scott re-trial. Check the opinions for the filing dates.Corey Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07846478901135984652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-83755467410156341862009-06-03T07:32:05.134-05:002009-06-03T07:32:05.134-05:00DISREGARD FOR THE LAW:
Keller, P.J., Hervey, Keasl...DISREGARD FOR THE LAW:<br />Keller, P.J., Hervey, Keasler, JJ., in their dissent, choose to disregard the clear, plain, language of our Texas Bill of Rights - Article I - securing to every person the absolute Right to an IMPARTIAL jury. ----<br />THE COURT, meaning the STATE ACTOR titled JUDGE, and all other Judicial Officials, and Court Officers of the STATE including the Prosecutor, have a LEGAL, as well as a FIDUCIARY, DUTY to provide every accused person with an IMPARTIAL jury. <br />------------------<br />The dissent is absurd & illogical because (1) these Justices assert the FACTS are irrelevant - in their mind if a jury wants to convict, even when the facts show no offense was committed, it's OK - as if there is no duty of Judicial Officials to provide an "impartial" jury, and <br />(2)the majority did NOT "reverse" with rendering, but reversed for RETRIAL. <br />--------<br />I cannot help but wonder how these people get through Law School, let alone manage to then get a license to practice their bias & prejudice in OUR courts sitting on OUR bench.Informed Citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06933944702188649792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-76217229014966222412009-06-03T07:08:10.698-05:002009-06-03T07:08:10.698-05:00WHAT'S UP HERE?
Did the CCA backdate their opi...WHAT'S UP HERE?<br />Did the CCA backdate their opinion?<br />Either the Reporters made an error, or the CCA wrote these opinions 3 years ago and just now chose to diclose them, but backdated the release.Informed Citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06933944702188649792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-13164295981185985272009-06-03T06:54:22.113-05:002009-06-03T06:54:22.113-05:00That is peculiar. Judge Womack's opinion is d...That is peculiar. Judge Womack's opinion is dated in May 2006.<br /><br />The news story is dated in June 2009, but has a quote, or a statement, attributed to Ronnie Earle, Travis County District Attorney. Which he is no longer, as far as I know.dorannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-63112658172401346642009-06-03T06:13:38.302-05:002009-06-03T06:13:38.302-05:00Huh ... Are you sure? The news story was dated Mon...Huh ... Are you sure? The <a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/archive/20060525yogurt.html" rel="nofollow">news story</a> was dated Monday.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-36552194841990453852009-06-02T18:07:47.495-05:002009-06-02T18:07:47.495-05:00Just to avoid any confusion, this case came down s...Just to avoid any confusion, this case came down several years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-58010330090375878532009-06-02T15:45:56.649-05:002009-06-02T15:45:56.649-05:00Did I read this correctly? Judge Keller dismissed...Did I read this correctly? Judge Keller dismissed the possibility that the Defendant had given a false confession (because he had no motive to lie) even though the record shows that more than 50 other people confessed to the crimes? Is that what she wrote?dorannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-83644600163578057642009-06-02T09:02:33.391-05:002009-06-02T09:02:33.391-05:00Probably one of your best posts.
I wish Texas la...Probably one of your best posts. <br /><br />I wish Texas law allowed for more scientific evidence on appeal, such as the studies regarding false confessions. Unless brought out at trial, it's almost impossible to have such studies heard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com