tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post5514669817860650323..comments2024-03-15T05:45:01.402-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: CCA laments 'disconnect between changing science and reliable verdicts' it helped createGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-39683432555813345012012-02-12T11:57:48.532-06:002012-02-12T11:57:48.532-06:00the judge I met was from Austin. Must have been Ch...the judge I met was from Austin. Must have been Cheryl Johnson.ckikerintuliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02670661043872744115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-61407362620876223162012-02-11T09:34:17.480-06:002012-02-11T09:34:17.480-06:00Thank you Scott and
thank you Anonymous 2/10/201...Thank you Scott and <br /><br />thank you Anonymous 2/10/2012 12:51:00 PMdudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-47591501440447308532012-02-10T17:37:04.920-06:002012-02-10T17:37:04.920-06:00Thanks anonymous 9:22. I'll check the website....Thanks anonymous 9:22. I'll check the website. I doubt if I would recognize the picture it's been so long.ckikerintuliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02670661043872744115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-74941330377006838102012-02-10T12:51:07.969-06:002012-02-10T12:51:07.969-06:00The problems with this particular case do not real...The problems with this particular case do not really stem from a "disconnect" between science and the law. At trial the jurors heard two alternative explanations for the child's death - deliberate poisoning (the prosecution explanation) and unintentional poisoning due to pica (the defense explanation). The jury accepted the defense explanation. When they were polled, according to the article, none of the jurors believed that Overton had poisoned the child. So the jury rejected the prosecution theory that the child had been deliberately poisoned. <br /><br />The jury did exactly what they were supposed to do - evaluate evidence and expert opinion, and then make a decision. And they made the correct decision. The state had not proven that Overton had intentionally poisoned the child.<br /><br />The guilty verdict in this case has nothing to do with the scientific evidence in the case. Overton was found guilty because she failed to take the child to a doctor. That was the basis of the "guilt by omission" verdict, and there is was no scientific evidence that bore upon that question. <br /><br />I agree that there is in general a disconnect between science and the law. But Judge Cochran's framing of this particular case as an example of that disconnect is not really on the mark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-7429249872525255552012-02-10T11:05:54.684-06:002012-02-10T11:05:54.684-06:00"Given the facts viewed in the fullness of ti..."Given the facts viewed in the fullness of time, today's public may reasonably perceive that the criminal justice system is sometimes unjust and inaccurate. Finality of judgment is essential in criminal cases, but so is accuracy of the result...."<br /><br />Judge Cochran said a mouthful there. The public does, indeed, correctly perceive our justice system as often unjust and deeply flawed. Without the public's confidence in the judiciary, we have no real rule of law. <br /><br />Today Judge Harle up in Georgetown is expected to hand down his ruling on Mike Morton's motion for a court of inquiry. This could be a big first step to starting a conversation all over Texas- and the country, since we are hardly unique in having sleazy DA's, judges, and appeals courts. Should he fail to grant, you can bet your boots there will be an explosion of outrage. This is where serious reform can start, along with a beefed up Forensics Science Commission. Then it is time for the coming Leg session to address the unbridled power of DA's and set some common sense and much needed limits. It is also imperative that all those local police and sheriffs associations be blocked in their attempts to weaken the coming guidelines on eye witness testimony.Phillip Bakernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-30980814535419728632012-02-10T09:22:42.372-06:002012-02-10T09:22:42.372-06:00Greetings, Tulia:
The court's photo is on the...Greetings, Tulia:<br /><br />The court's photo is on the CCA website, as are little profiles of the judges - that is one way to figure out who is who.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-71791288712699196312012-02-10T07:42:58.007-06:002012-02-10T07:42:58.007-06:00Who is Judge Cochran? Several years ago I met a ju...Who is Judge Cochran? Several years ago I met a judge who was serving on CCA at a Methodist church where my niece was a member. She was so glad Gov. Perry pardoned the Tulia folk so that it was not a long strung out process for CCA. I was quite impressed with her and her sense of fairness. I'm wondering if that was Judge Cochran.ckikerintuliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02670661043872744115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-41924271262325250432012-02-09T20:04:47.876-06:002012-02-09T20:04:47.876-06:00As Miscellaneous Lawyer should know, the CCA in th...As Miscellaneous Lawyer should know, the CCA in the 2010 Coble case showed a more robust approach to the admission of expert testimony in the past - that case, and Vela v. State are potentially extremely helpful to trial counsel IF USED. Why the caps? Because all too often defense counsel, even in capital cases, fail to file the necessary motions or do the preparation necessary to a comprehensive examination of an expert's qualifications and the reliability of the proffered testimony. Judge Cochran and some of the other more objective members of the court have helped enormously in clarifying the procedures for testing the reliability of scientific evidence by submitting it to the trial judge in a "gatekeeper" hearing before it goes anywhere near the jury. The tools are there - thank you, Judge Cochran - but counsel persist in leaving them in the toolshed rather than picking them up and doing some work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-8999044997466596482012-02-09T16:24:44.934-06:002012-02-09T16:24:44.934-06:00Perhaps have a more stringent test for 'expert...Perhaps have a more stringent test for 'expert' witnesses? <br /><br />The problem is that an 'expert' witness isn't there to tell the judge what the deciding fact is, they are there to assist the judge to find that themselves. So the judge (or jury) is asked to become an expert on the science before they make a decision.<br /><br />IE: A forensic psychologist makes the following observations to the judge/jury. "The common signs of this mental condition are x, y, z, a, b, and c. I interviewed the defendant and he exhibited x, z, a and d. The normal course of the condition is consistent with those. <br />A person with that condition demonstrates these characteristics, which are not consistent with the mens rea required for the offence." <br /><br />The judge/jury then have to decide whether x, z, a, and d are sufficient to prove the existence of the condition, and then decide whether that condition is sufficient to exculpate the defendant. <br /><br />If there is any break in communication between the expert witness and the Court, there is a large opportunity for error.Miscellaneous Lawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10090128614779179569noreply@blogger.com