tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post7284820738067119710..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Judge and DA in Charles Hood case admit to sexual relationsGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-23964826240237988662010-03-06T09:01:21.251-06:002010-03-06T09:01:21.251-06:00What a cool blog to visit. I like itWhat a cool blog to visit. I like itCompro Orohttp://comprovendooroplata.yolasite.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-31413959772799557472009-02-17T16:54:00.000-06:002009-02-17T16:54:00.000-06:00Is there any updates of how this trial ended up? I...Is there any updates of how this trial ended up? I'd like to know how justice was done in this case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-50191971647013402442008-12-10T16:26:00.000-06:002008-12-10T16:26:00.000-06:00It is really shameful on their part to have this k...It is really shameful on their part to have this king of behaivior and just remain in silence while the process is going on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-46840806025673963102008-09-27T09:57:00.000-05:002008-09-27T09:57:00.000-05:00What is almost as disturbing is how many attorneys...What is almost as disturbing is how many attorneys and judges knew about this relationship, knowing a defendant was sitting on death row, and said nothing.alan milsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04009822750595250272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-48910678183067821912008-09-15T14:32:00.000-05:002008-09-15T14:32:00.000-05:00""...be ashamed of yourself if you are supporting ...""...be ashamed of yourself if you are supporting Robert's apparent call for an ex post facto law and prosecution. ""<BR/><BR/>Why should he be ashamed? The Texas elected body, as well as the US Congress regularly pass ex poste facto law against several groups, terrorists, sex offenders, etc. Why should this be any different? If we are gonna throw out the Constitution, we might as well make it a clean sweep.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-41079793090625963902008-09-15T13:41:00.000-05:002008-09-15T13:41:00.000-05:00They committed the crime of attempted manslaughter...They committed the crime of attempted manslaughter:<BR/><BR/> ยง 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense <BR/>if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.<BR/> (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second <BR/>degree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-31313294247952691032008-09-14T18:46:00.000-05:002008-09-14T18:46:00.000-05:00"She may have had a duty ethically, but that does ..."She may have had a duty ethically, but that does not necessarily mean she had a duty as far as the criminal law is concerned."<BR/><BR/>The statute doesn't say that the underlying law which is broken must be a criminal law. This might be one of those situations where a civil law is criminalized like in Medicaid/Medicare fraud situations. If it is, then I would think that statutes cited by Anon 8:42 would suffice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-91124515020407857442008-09-12T08:42:00.000-05:002008-09-12T08:42:00.000-05:00CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURECHAPTER 2. GENERAL DUTIE...CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE<BR/><BR/>CHAPTER 2. GENERAL DUTIES OF OFFICERS<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> Art. 2.01. DUTIES OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. Each district <BR/>attorney shall represent the State in all criminal cases in the <BR/>district courts of his district and in appeals therefrom, except in cases where he has been, before his election, employed adversely. <BR/>When any criminal proceeding is had before an examining court in his district or before a judge upon habeas corpus, and he is notified of the same, and is at the time within his district, he shall represent the State therein, unless prevented by other official duties. It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.<BR/><BR/>Art. 2.03. NEGLECT OF DUTY. (a) It shall be the duty of the <BR/>attorney representing the State to present by information to the <BR/>court having jurisdiction, any officer for neglect or failure of <BR/>any duty enjoined upon such officer, when such neglect or failure can be presented by information, whenever it shall come to the knowledge of said attorney that there has been a neglect or failure of duty upon the part of said officer; and he shall bring to the notice of the grand jury any act of violation of law or neglect or failure of duty upon the part of any officer, when such violation, neglect or failure is not presented by information, and whenever the same may come to his knowledge.<BR/> (b) It is the duty of the trial court, the attorney <BR/>representing the accused, the attorney representing the state and all peace officers to so conduct themselves as to insure a fair trial for both the state and the defendant, not impair the <BR/>presumption of innocence, and at the same time afford the public the benefits of a free press.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-45725468227566583532008-09-11T18:40:00.000-05:002008-09-11T18:40:00.000-05:00Bluesy, context is everything and your comments ar...Bluesy, context is everything and your comments are so completely lacking in it I can't find the will to respond in any detail. I don't know the right answer, but my gut tells me what you've said isn't it. If an aggressive, motivated prosecutor went looking for possible charges, I'm pretty sure they'd find them. But I can't cite chapter and verse, so I'll admit that shortcoming and leave you and our readers to their own conclusions.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-71364848886916446332008-09-11T18:17:00.000-05:002008-09-11T18:17:00.000-05:00Grits,She may have had a duty ethically, but that ...Grits,<BR/><BR/>She may have had a duty ethically, but that does not necessarily mean she had a duty as far as the criminal law is concerned.<BR/><BR/>"A person commits the offense of abuse of official capacity if, as a public servant and with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment. "Law" in this context means a law that specifically applies to a person acting in the capacity of a public servant and that directly or indirectly imposes a duty on the public servant or governs the conduct of the public servant. "Law" is further defined as 'the constitution or a statute of this State or of the United States, a written opinion of a court of record, a municipal ordinance, an order of a county commissioners court, or a rule authorized by and lawfully adopted under a statute.'" <I>State v. Campbell</I>, 113 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. App. Tyler 2000) no pet., internal citations omitted.<BR/><BR/>Unless you can show that the judge had a duty to disclose the relationship by law, you don't have a case.<BR/><BR/>The cases cited by your analysts aren't even close to being on point for this case. I also love it when they provide me with cases that not only fail to support their point, but make my point for me. See FN5 of your link, referring to:<BR/><BR/>"Additionally, "mere violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct alone, do not constitute reversible error. . ., and . . . unethical conduct. . . is not necessarily a legal ground for reversal." <I>Westbrook v. State</I>, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), at 121, internal citation omitted.<BR/><BR/>Grits, your own link refers to a case that says that this (a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct isn't a reason to reverse the conviction - so why the uproar? If it is good enough to execute Westbrook for a double murder, why should Hood walk?<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you mean on the clergy deal - I really don't have a dog in that hunt. The only privilege that exists is at the pleasure of the Lege, so if the courts narrow it, I'll work with it. It's not a Constitutional issue that I can see.<BR/><BR/>Now, if they start talking about attorney-client privilege, I can get pretty worked up... ;)TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68408459574667962582008-09-11T16:18:00.000-05:002008-09-11T16:18:00.000-05:00Hey Bluesy, I was actually interested to hear your...Hey Bluesy, I was actually interested to hear your reactions to <A HREF="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/09/church-of-christ-other-protestants-may.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A> and the discussion in the comments. That may be one where we find more common ground.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-82135711194369140022008-09-11T15:25:00.000-05:002008-09-11T15:25:00.000-05:00Plato, I'm not an abolitionist so your implication...Plato, I'm not an abolitionist so your implication that I possess a "zeal to abolish the death penalty" is misguided and misplaced. No wonder your comments made no sense! You're beefing against some phantom in your mind, not me. Arguing the points, not your prejudices, makes the discussion more useful and interesting.<BR/><BR/>Bluesy, you're something. I'm sure when you're claiming police officers can't ever be held accountable in your day job you're very convincing. But just saying there's no crime doesn't mean it's true, just like my having not shown the law requiring the judge and prosecutor to disclose misconduct doesn't mean they had no such duty. For the prosecutor it's Brady, among other things. For the judge, see this <A HREF="http://www.aprl.net/pdf/APRL_Statement_CharlesDeanHood.pdf" REL="nofollow">analysis from ethicists</A> on why she had a duty under the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Criminal Procedure to both recuse herself and disclose the conflict.<BR/><BR/>I'm not a lawyer and not equipped to answer definitively which of the 2,324 Texas felonies or thousands of misdemeanors might have been broken. But it strikes me as telling that you think the law has zero recourse in such a case. Your stance compared to your speculative prosecution suggestions for the FLDS tells me more about you, frankly, Bluesy, than it does about whether the law might ever hold Judge Holland accountable.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-19371700540036440162008-09-11T15:09:00.000-05:002008-09-11T15:09:00.000-05:00Blue's brain is wired like a cow's, it only knows ...Blue's brain is wired like a cow's, it only knows the way back to the barn. Asking him to figure out how to criminally charge someone on his team is like asking a cow to think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-49706501877035463622008-09-11T14:25:00.000-05:002008-09-11T14:25:00.000-05:00Grits, When the statute changed, so did the possib...Grits, <BR/><BR/>When the statute changed, so did the possibility of prosecuting someone under the old statute. When that statute was repealed, the offense ceased to be continuing on that date, and the statute of limitations clock started ticking.<BR/><BR/><I>Harrelson</I> stated that you could not calculate the salary of state employees doing their jobs, who would otherwise be engaged in other tasks for the state. That prevents you from using the wages of the AG lawyers to compute the amount.<BR/><BR/>You can't even show what law stated that they had a duty to disclose the affair.<BR/><BR/>It may have been unethical, but you haven't made a case that it was illegal. The fact that you don't particularly care for what they did doesn't mean you can just throw them in jail. You have to have an offense, which you don't have.<BR/><BR/>I understand your frustration, but you're beating a dead horse.<BR/><BR/>Move on to disbarment, etc., and give the idea of prosecution up - it ain't goin' happen.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-69982259167130053842008-09-11T14:12:00.000-05:002008-09-11T14:12:00.000-05:00Grits - in your zeal to abolish the death penalty ...Grits - in your zeal to abolish the death penalty in Texas, you'll grasp at any straw that furthers your objective, IMO. While all this extranerous sexual hanky panky by a judge and prosecutor shouldn't have happened, it did. But what, pray tell, did these sexual liaisons have to do with the evidence presented at trial and the jury's death sentence decision? You are always the zealot who wants convictions to be 100% accurate and unlimited funds expended in order to "turn over every rock" before judgement and sentence so I ask, where's the beef? <BR/><BR/>Just tell me, WTF does the judge and prosecutors deal have to do with the evidence, judgement and sentence in this case?<BR/><BR/>Plato<BR/>(semi partial referee)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-57428062738326238442008-09-11T13:47:00.000-05:002008-09-11T13:47:00.000-05:00Since you'll be here, Plato, tell us why you think...Since you'll be here, Plato, tell us why you think so, oh master of the short declarative. No offense but you're not exactly a partial referee!<BR/><BR/>Bluesy, the penal code was revamped in 1993, but it's not like that behavior wasn't illegal before. Also, to the extent they had a pro-active duty to come forward, they continued to violate the law past 1994 and in Judge Holland's case possibly up to the time of the deposition, when she finally came clean.<BR/><BR/>On misappropriation of funds and property, how about the legal fees spent to defend her by the AG? She solicited that assistance as a public official relatively recently (the AG dropped her as a client last week). Was the request in furtherance of a conspiracy to violate Charles Hood's civil rights? That's just one thought. Again, if you were being as creative as I've seen you in the past, you might be able to come up with others. :)Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1339846199875548192008-09-11T13:33:00.000-05:002008-09-11T13:33:00.000-05:00Bluesman wins by a knockout! Grits, you're really...Bluesman wins by a knockout! Grits, you're really stretching on this one. Now - carry on - I'll be in the area all day.<BR/><BR/>PlatoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-45213536864751952932008-09-11T13:32:00.000-05:002008-09-11T13:32:00.000-05:00Both the judge and the DA swore to uphold the Cons...Both the judge and the DA swore to uphold the Constitution so maybe they are "enemy combatants" ... send them to Gitmo without any charge.<BR/><BR/>Ha!<BR/><BR/>Or maybe charge them with Treason and execute them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-11443195821864151792008-09-11T12:44:00.000-05:002008-09-11T12:44:00.000-05:00Jerri,Abuse of Official Capacity became law in 199...Jerri,<BR/><BR/>Abuse of Official Capacity became law in 1994, after the trial. If it were a continuing offense, based on misconduct during the trial, it would have to be on a charge that was valid at that time, not something that was only effective 4 years later. It is difficult to prove a continuing offense where there was no offense at the time that the alleged criminal episode began.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, since you can't charge based on the costs of the trial, state employee salaries, etc. (see <I>Harrelson v. State</I>, 153 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. App. Beaumont 2004, pet ref'd)), you would have to show the misappropriation of government funds or property. Defense costs do not meet the requirements of the statute. The other possible theory would be under the 'violates a law relating to the public servant's office...'<BR/><BR/>What, pray tell, law was violated? And how do you tie that to an offense that had not yet even been enacted?<BR/><BR/>As far as non-criminal sanctions, I'm all for those. But you can't throw someone in jail because they did something that may or may not have become a violation of the law at a date after the beginning of the 'continuing' offense (assuming, <I>arguendo</I>, that it is a continuing offense). It's called an <I>ex post facto</I> law and it is prohibited by the Constitution.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-59206918970797639472008-09-11T11:46:00.000-05:002008-09-11T11:46:00.000-05:00Jerri, I agree. I don't think it's so cut and drie...Jerri, I agree. I don't think it's so cut and dried, particularly for Judge Holland who still sits as a visiting judge. A couple of lawyers I've talked to think her criminal liability may be ongoing because she is still obligated by her judicial duties. Since he's no longer a public servant, the same may not be true for O'Connell, by this logic.<BR/><BR/>Hell, if Judge Holland were a member of FLDS, I think even Bluesy might agree! ;)<BR/><BR/>Regardless of the chances of prosecution, both should be disbarred. Now. Today. By the end of business, if possible. For that matter, anyone who knew about the affair and didn't complain to the state bar should at least be subject to sanction.<BR/><BR/>Too many people knowingly tolerated or even justified these unethical boors' behavior for far too long.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-48008712912581839312008-09-11T10:30:00.000-05:002008-09-11T10:30:00.000-05:00I'm not convinced about that SOL thing. If there ...I'm not convinced about that SOL thing. If there is a continuing legal duty on the part of these people to reveal this information, as the Hood case (or any others) progressed, then law breaking occurred up until the admissions during the deposition. I believe the violation of law was not only the failure to recuse, but the failure to come clean (misrepresentation). I think that there is an argument to be made that the SOL runs from the deposition date.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-73073545270947387062008-09-11T08:26:00.000-05:002008-09-11T08:26:00.000-05:00Rage,You might want to invest some of your time le...Rage,<BR/><BR/>You might want to invest some of your time learning to read - my first post on this thread clearly states that I do not approve of what DA O'Connell and Judge Holland did.<BR/><BR/>A number of people, some knee-jerk liberals, some students of the system like Grits is usually, have called or otherwise opined about criminal prosecution. Grits was up front in his blog post that the statute of limitations was probably expired.<BR/><BR/>A number of people then started to suggest all sorts of charges, none of which apply, either because of the statute of limitations or because the facts don't meet the elements of the offense.<BR/><BR/>As for Grits rubbing my nose in it? Hasn't happened.<BR/><BR/>We disagree, but Grits runs a civil blog, and while we disagree on a number of issues, he has made points (as have I) that are opinion, and that will have to wait until the appeals run out (and you're looking at a period of several years for that).<BR/><BR/>I have not called for the arrest or prosecution for any "every day citizen" except when there is probable cause to believe that they have committed a crime, as has been borne out in the FLDS case.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-17718531961456195982008-09-11T06:22:00.000-05:002008-09-11T06:22:00.000-05:00It may not be clear, but the first half of the pre...<I>It may not be clear, but the first half of the previous post was responding to Daniel, not Grits...</I><BR/><BR/>Because you have nothing with which to respond to Grits rubbing your nose in your own poop.<BR/><BR/>I hadn't thought about it in his terms, but he's exactly right. It's amazing the extent to which "conservatives" will go to try and arrest and convict every day citizens, but ignore the transgressions of judges and prosecutors who have admitted to wrong doings.<BR/><BR/>Coward.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-19778744996714676482008-09-11T01:13:00.000-05:002008-09-11T01:13:00.000-05:00The feds might charge it as conspiracy to defraud ...The feds might charge it as conspiracy to defraud the people of Texas of the right to honest services ... just need a phone call or such in furtherance within the 5 yr statute. I don't know of a precedent offhand, but these are pretty unusual facts, and given the cost to the taxpayers it's worth a look.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-58101081006361974242008-09-10T18:07:00.000-05:002008-09-10T18:07:00.000-05:00To 5:59 - Judge Holland still gets work as a visit...To 5:59 - Judge Holland still gets work as a visiting judge. As such, I'm told she may still have pro-active obligations as a judge that she's violating by failing to speak up for so long. The DA probably can't be touched. That's speculative gossip, but it's a theory I've heard about how she might remain criminally liable.<BR/><BR/>That said, returning to Bluesy, I admitted in the original post I suspected the statute of limitations had run out. But it strikes me you're AWFULLY quick to decide there's no criminal culpability here given your usual tendency to jump the gun based on the slimmest possible reed of proof. <BR/><BR/>The punishment range for abuse of official capacity goes all the way up to a first degree felony, plus Robert's suggestions are still valid. Clearly from the results of the reader poll so far, I'm not alone thinking prosecution might be in order (though I actually chose disbarrment on the poll). So far 32% say the pair should be held criminally liable.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I didn't ignore any evidence re: FLDS - I just didn't assume every insinuation was God's truth and instead required proof beyond just spinning tiny factbites out of context. As it stands they're down to a handful of weak cases, all based on a hoax phone call with no complaining victim. Compare that to this case and there's a lot more smoke AND fire regarding misconduct by O'Connell and Holland than you ever demonstrated regarding anyone at FLDS.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.com