The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals last month solicited public comments on new rules governing habeas corpus filings and witness statements, among other things. See here. For those who have an interest, your deadline for public comment is January 31st.
Although this was already part of the existing rules of appellate procedure, this tidbit jumped out at me. The State can file a motion for rehearing when they lose at the CCA on a habeas corpus writ, but writ-filers may not:
"A motion for rehearing an order that denies habeas corpus relief or dismisses a habeas corpus application under Code of Criminal Procedure, articles 11.07 or 11.071, may not be filed," reads the rule. By contrast, the state may file a motion for rehearing if it is grounded on specific "substantial intervening circumstances or on other significant circumstances."
In some sense, Grits understands this. Mostly pro se writ petitioners would have little incentive not to file motions for rehearing and the volume of pro se writs already is crushing the court. Grits believes the process would be much improved if, in the interests of justice and judicial economy, the state provided public-defender services for prisoners' habeas writs so they were more on point legally and less repetitive and fruitless as a practical matter. That's a topic for another day.
But the plain lopsidedness of allowing the state to seek rehearing - as, for example, prosecutors did in the Ex Parte Robbins case interpreting Texas' new junk science writ - but not allowing writ petitioners sitting in prison a similar second bite at the apple, for example, if membership on the court changes after a close decision, smacks of unfairness. For a court whose presiding judge once ran on a "pro prosecution" platform, it's a bit jarring to see that opportunity so expressly cabined to government and denied to the individual.
Notably, even capital defendants (CCP 11.071) are denied motions for rehearing, though if pigs fly that day and they win at the CCA, the state can ask the court to reconsider it.
Meanwhile, regarding implementation of the Michael Morton Act, the court clarified that the rule requiring witness statements to be turned over at trial after they testify does not preclude prosecutors' responsibility to comply with the Michael Morton Act. Their comment seemed like a workaday interpretation to this non-lawyer, but it clarified that Michael Morton Act obligations regarding witness statements, which by definition include grand jury testimony (!), must be fulfilled before trial, not punted until after a witness testifies.
Grits may disagree with various CCA judges on various issues, but it seems to this non-lawyer observer like all of them have embraced the Michael Morton Act to a greater degree than I ever expected. Good for them.
The Court also set a public hearing on April 5 in Austin regarding electronic filings in criminal cases.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
8 comments:
You suggest the State pay for legal aissistance for habeas applicants: "Grits believes the process would be much improved if, in the interests of justice and judicial economy, the state provided public-defender services for prisoners' habeas writs so they were more on point legally and less repetitive and fruitless as a practical matter. That's a topic for another day."
This exists. The State Counsel for Offenders (formerly known as TDC Staff Counsel) has an appellate division that provides this service. https://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/divisions/scfo/sco_appellate.html. Some of the best criminal attorneys in the State (John Jasuta, Mary Anne Wiley, Ken Schutze, to name a few) have worked in this division through the years.
Unfortunately these attorneys prefer to cherry pick their cases and in turn refuse to handle other cases especially those that deal with civil commitment.
Rigged
The aforementioned State Counsel for Offenders is SERIOUSLY due for a re-evaluation. 90% of offenders get a boilerplate postcard reply saying they cannot assist. Somebody really needs to investigate whether they earn their taxpayer funded paycheck,
The postcards have been gone for years now. If you want State Counsel to handle writs from 150,000 inmates, you should probably increase their budget instead of adding an unfunded mandate.
Anon@7:58 if the postcards are gone I am satisfied. The postcards left a lot of inmates feeling like the State Counsel doesn't even read their letters to see whether they had valid grounds for a post conviction writ.
Civil commitment is Unconstitutional and needs to be stop!
Serious investigation is needed,Counsel for offenders are not defending these inmates due to they work for the State,but us tax payers are paying them.I know in Civil Commitment the Counsel would just say to go with it and that they are not going to win,now look at the program,they want to keep them till death,how is that ok,Whitmire needs to be removed from Office. Marsha is just worried about her paycheck of $133,000 salary for keeping the men in Littlefield awat from Family.
Post a Comment