tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post5483284867865714386..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Questioning John Bradley: Forensic Science Commissioners up in Senate Nominations MondayGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-40474572650182852032011-03-01T23:00:41.465-06:002011-03-01T23:00:41.465-06:00I can't say this about all "conservatives...I can't say this about all "conservatives" or Tea Party-sans or even Republicans - but, I can say it FOR MANY of them or for MOST OF THE ONES I HAPPEN TO KNOW - they don't believe in science in the first place. NO evolution, NO Global Warming, NO accurate history books, and especially NO G*D D**MN Forensic Science Commission!! They'd rather believe in that "Gut Feeling" of the fire investigator on the Willingham case.David RDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-10610503918028714642011-02-28T21:15:06.933-06:002011-02-28T21:15:06.933-06:00If it's 19-12, isn't it the case that he W...If it's 19-12, isn't it the case that he WON'T be confirmed because of the 2/3 rule?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-50394754640628696782011-02-28T18:00:37.534-06:002011-02-28T18:00:37.534-06:00Since the committee voted on party lines for the n...Since the committee voted on party lines for the nomination, I expect he will be confirmed, probably with a 19-12 semate vote.<br /><br />Charles in TuliaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-77955106917154931742011-02-28T11:54:50.798-06:002011-02-28T11:54:50.798-06:00YES, I AM SCREAMING! I AM A GOD-DAMNED LIBERAL WHO...YES, I AM SCREAMING! I AM A GOD-DAMNED LIBERAL WHO SUPPORTS THE DEATH PENALTY! I JUST DON'T SUPPORT THE CHEATING, LYING, CORRUPT TEXAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT HAS WITNESSED MORE DNA AND NON-DNA EXONERATIONS THAN ANY OTHER STATE. <br /><br />THE TEXAS SYSTEM IS BROKEN IN MORE THAN ONE PLACE AND NEEDS FIXED. PERIOD. THE DEATH PENALTY IN TEXAS NEEDS TO BE ATTACKED BECAUSE OF THE CASES OF PEOPLE BEING SENT THERE WHO WERE INNOCENT.<br /><br />HELLO????????Hook Em Hornshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04660612847019528535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-43321960871022081932011-02-28T11:00:49.935-06:002011-02-28T11:00:49.935-06:00Ellis brought his A-game, it sounds like. Funny s...Ellis brought his A-game, it sounds like. Funny stuff.<br /><br />RageAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-60031556629914076632011-02-28T10:51:46.555-06:002011-02-28T10:51:46.555-06:00The relevant federal parole statute relied on in t...The relevant federal parole statute relied on in the above holdings, since repealed, states in pertinent part, that the Parole Commission:<br /> shall determine ... whether all or any part of the unexpired term being served at the time of parole shall run concurrently or consecutively with the sentence imposed for the new offense, but in no case shall such service together with such time as the parolee has previously served in connection with the offenses for which he was paroled be longer than the maximum term for which he was sentenced in connection with such offense. <br />18 U.S.C. § 4210(b)(2)(emphasis added). The former federal statute goes on to state that:<br /> [i]n the case of any parolee found to have intentionally refused or failed to respond to any reasonable request, order, summons or warrant ... the jurisdiction of the Commission may be extended for the period during which the parolee so refused or failed to respond.<br />18 U.S.C. § 4210(c).<br /><br />Only federal defendants on "special parole" lost their street time. See 21 U.S.C. § 841. Specifically, § 841(c), since repealed, requires mandatory forfeiture of street time for special parole violators sentenced under that statute. Munguia v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 871 F.2d 517, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 493 U.S. 856, 110 S.Ct. 161, 107 L.Ed.2d 119 (1989). However, a special parole term was a punishment "in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other parole provided for by law." 21 U.S.C. § 841(c). The special parole term was also in addition to the sentence of imprisonment and was handed out to certain defendants convicted of drug-related offenses at punishment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Texas has no such policy or statute in which judges impose additional parole terms defendants are to serve upon completing their actual sentences. In Texas, the parole term is part of, not in addition to, the sentence.<br /><br />At the very least, federal judges interpreting 508.283(c) have a misunderstanding of Texas law. More likely, having established relationships within the federal judiciary in the Fifth Circuit after 30 years of litigation in Ruiz v. Estelle, the Department has the judges in their pocket. Where the courts have failed to remedy this matter, it is the responsibility of the Legislature to intervene. <br /><br />Any comments or suggestions from you and others is greatly appreciated. I will be in Austin tomorrow and hope to present this issue to the Senate Crim Just Committee. Your thoughts???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-69562070017830079392011-02-28T10:50:48.708-06:002011-02-28T10:50:48.708-06:00My point is this: According to the Legislative Bud...My point is this: According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) Uniform Cost Reports, the average number of parolees returned to prison each year for technical violations only the last six years is 1,695. Additionally, the average number of parolees returned for new misdemeanor or felony offenses the last three years is 5,813. The average number of years technical violators spent in compliance with parole conditions prior to revocation the last six years has steadily increased, from 2.56 years in 2005, to 3.5 years in 2010. The six-year average is 3.04 years. The length of time parolees with new offenses spent on the streets prior to revocation the last three years has remained the same at 2.8 years. Thus, each year taxpayers bear the additional cost of supervising technical violators for 5,153 years more than judges, juries, and prosecutors intended them to serve; for violators with new convictions the number is 16,276 years. <br /> <br />Some of these offenders will serve the additional years in prison, at a cost of about $43 per day; others will serve the additional years on various forms of parole, ranging from active supervision at a cost of $3.74 a day, to super-intensive supervision, which costs $25.54 per day. If all offenders served the additional years in prison, the annual cost of the current 508.283(c) is as high as $336,328,155 (16,276 [years added to the sentences with new convictions] + 5,153 [years added to technical violators] x $15,695 [cost of supervision in the TDCJ-CID]). At best, if all offenders spent every minute of the additional years on regular active parole supervision, the costs are no lower than $80,144 ([16,276 + 5,153] x $3.74). <br /><br />There is no way to determine how many of the additional years will be spent in prison or on what type of parole. While some may spend all the additional time in prison, most will spend portions of the additional time in prison and on parole. Averaging the two extremes, above, the annual cost of enforcing 508.283(c) as it is current written is approximately $168,204,149! This does not include the costs incurred by the Attorney General's Office in defending applications for writs of habeas corpus filed by offenders who have been punished beyond the terms given them by the courts. According to Reg Hargrove, the Attorney General's Public Information Coordinator, this amount cannot be determined, as their budget is not itemized per claims filed.<br /><br />Everyone seems to be missing this huge cost savings. As a cost-saving measure, the legislature recently enacted 508.1555 permitting early termination of supervision for parolees who have been out and done well for an extended period of time. This is even more to the point: Why not allow offenders to receive credit for calendar time they actually served in compliance with their parole -- whether that was one week or ten years -- and why not allow that rule to apply regardless of the offense for which the individual was convicted? Either way, it is still calendar time served.<br /><br />As I mentioned above, the statute in question was enacted by the 56th Legislature in 1959. It has been upheld by courts ever since. E.g., Joyner v. Moore, 233 F.Supp. 309 (S.D. Tex., 1964); Betts v. Beto, 424 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir., 1970); and Morrison v. Johnson, 106 F.3d 127 (5th Cir., 1997), cert. denied 525 U.S. 1081, 119 S. Ct. 823, 142 L. Ed. 2d 681 (1999). To justify their rationale in Morrison, the Court cited Cortinas v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 938 F.2d 43 (5th Cir., 1991), as an example of a federal statute (since repealed) in which those on special parole were required to forfeit their street-time credit. However, a closer look at the former federal statute reveals no resemblance to the scheme in Texas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-67346510082880870182011-02-28T10:49:50.082-06:002011-02-28T10:49:50.082-06:00Good job, Scott, keeping these people informed. O...Good job, Scott, keeping these people informed. On another note, tomorrow I will be in Austin and looking forward to the opportunity to discuss a proposal that would save more money than all others considered thus far. Amend 508.283(c), Tex.Govt.Cd., to permit parolees to receive credit for calendar time served in compliance with rules and conditions of parole.<br /><br />A closer look at the relevant statutes results in ambiguity. First of all, a parolee is in the "legal, custody of the division." Moreover, 508.155(b) says that parole time is "calendar time" served. Moving to 508.142, we see that the parole term is to be calculated by subtracting from the sentence "calendar time" served. So, my reading of these two statutes taken together, is that when determining the amount of time a parolee is to serve, we need to subtract from his sentence any calendar time served -- whether that calendar time was served in the custody of the TDCJ-CID or the TDCJ-PD. Yet, there is a trump card.<br /><br />Section 508.283(c) says that if a parolee who has never been convicted of any offense under 508.149(a), and who has not served half of his parole, is returned to the TDCJ-CID, he is not to receive credit for any of the time from the date of his initial release to his re-arrest. This means, he loses all calendar time served on parole, period! Side note: If a parolee absconds, say, I don't have a problem with his not receiving credit for the time he is at-large. But we have another statute to address that, 508.253. However, the way 508.283(c) is worded, there is no need for 508.253.<br /><br />So why the ambiguity and seeming contradictions? Both statutes were enacted during the 56th Legislature in 1959. Without having the opportunity to read or listen to the minutes of those hearings (if they are even available) it should suffice to say that the good-ole boy system operated in Huntsville and Austin in the 1950's was anything but compliant with the civil rights of ordinary citizens. Heck, up to the 1970's we still had completely segregated prison units for God's sake!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-42459684800036603092011-02-28T10:05:54.086-06:002011-02-28T10:05:54.086-06:00"if so many people do not like Rick Perry, wh..."if so many people do not like Rick Perry, who voted for him?"<br /><br />People who just vote based on party labels instead of actually bothering to look at the candidates. We need more parties or none, but the two party system is a disaster. Just look at redistricting. The whole goal is to create districts that take away our choices. :-(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-31112447009982983182011-02-28T09:42:51.932-06:002011-02-28T09:42:51.932-06:00So if so many people do not like Rick Perry, who v...So if so many people do not like Rick Perry, who voted for him? I did not and never have. <br /><br />As for John Bradley, I do not know him, but items I have read regarding him, speak of under-handed tatics and only for his "self inficted aura".<br />Next election, be sure who you vote for***Rick Perry is out to be something more than Governor of Texas. He could not afford to go to DC for the governor's meeting but could afford to fly to CA for a GOP highlight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-30744825229387087302011-02-28T05:41:31.191-06:002011-02-28T05:41:31.191-06:00John Bradley seems to have gotten away with a lot ...John Bradley seems to have gotten away with a lot over the years...as has Rick Perry. I find it amazing that he is allowed to hold any kind of office or position - hopefully the commissioners will stop his arrogance and require him to answer the appropriate questions. However, I have watched in horror over the years the unbelievable behavior displayed in Williamson County. Everytime a complaint that was unbelievable hit the new, he immediately settled the complaint out of court (with taxpayer money no less) to stop the bleeding in the news and went right on...this happened over and over. It would be interesting to find out how many lawsuits were settled during his tenure that were filed against Williamson County and were settled and just how much it has cost the county - I am sure the County would be floored. When there was some case that was covered in the news that would benefit him, he was quick to strut his stuff and weave his web of deceit. I think the State of Texas is better than that and hope we rid ourselves of these folks.<br />By the way - I find that the folks who bemoan and throw the Liberal term around usually are anything but a conservative - and in this case quiet a hypocrite.Hopefloatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12193750045309025820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-10654474802431018502011-02-28T01:44:02.150-06:002011-02-28T01:44:02.150-06:00Anonymous @ 7:30 sounds hauntingly like John Bradl...Anonymous @ 7:30 sounds hauntingly like John Bradley.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-44926397202828714762011-02-27T21:47:35.265-06:002011-02-27T21:47:35.265-06:00Who are the "liberals" or death penalty ...Who are the "liberals" or death penalty abolitionists on the Forensic Science Commission, 7:10, or for that matter on the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that went after Judge Keller? They're all GOP appointees, for heaven's sake. Blaming everything on the Great Liberal Conspiracy only works when there are actual liberals involved in the process to blame. This is a fight among conservatives - ones who believe science trumps ideology, and Bradley's cadre that believes the opposite.<br /><br />A similar fight is taking place involving JB's brother on the state board of education, btw, with his brother taking a similar ideology-over-science stance.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-55954136966866297742011-02-27T19:10:42.218-06:002011-02-27T19:10:42.218-06:00I don't see how you can criticize Bradley, Gri...I don't see how you can criticize Bradley, Grits, without acknowledging that the whole Willingham FSC investigation was political from the get go. Everyone knows that the reason that Innocence Project of New York made the original complaint was to attack the death penalty in Texas, maybe get a finding that an innocent had been executed and perhaps make Perry look bad before the election. Just like that silly court of inquiry they pushed before Judge Baird. It's not that different from that anti-death penalty scheme to discredit Sharon Keller. These anti-death penalty zealots know they can't win at the ballot box so the have to try all these silly little back door attacks to accomplish their liberal goals. So Perry out maneuvered them through Bradley. Personally, I'm glad he did. If the FSC can't stay true to its original mission without becoming embroiled in contentious political disputes over capital punishment, I think the Legislature should sunset the whole thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-40559764680846375292011-02-27T17:39:43.089-06:002011-02-27T17:39:43.089-06:00Michael, I didn't feel like I was holding back...Michael, I didn't feel like I was holding back too much. His public actions pretty much speak for themselves.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-88680286066319154252011-02-27T13:03:39.556-06:002011-02-27T13:03:39.556-06:00I agree with Michael. Bradley and his entire Wilc...I agree with Michael. Bradley and his entire Wilco operation is quite sleazy and Perry appointed him with the sole purpose of killing this FSC at all cost and with any means necessary. Perry and Bradley have nothing more important to them than obtaining and keeping as much political clout and power as they can...at all costs. They don't care one bit about innocence or a persons life - they care only about power! There are several Perry appointees that the Senate needs to very very carefully look at and get rid of, many of these "friends and contributors" are in the Texas justice area. The legislature needs to take this critical power away from the Governor and place it in the hands of independent committees that would recommend QUALIFIED experts to the Legislature for appointment and hiring. The "GOOD OLD BOY" system needs to be GONE!!!David RDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-82577883587876517062011-02-27T12:36:41.288-06:002011-02-27T12:36:41.288-06:00I know you have to be careful, Scott, that you don...I know you have to be careful, Scott, that you don't burn bridges, but the truth is that Bradley is a sleazebag who is only carrying out the orders of the man who appointed him -- the biggest sleazebag still in office in this state -- Governor Rick Perry. Perry cannot afford the embarrassment of his not having done something when he could have, or at least to honestly acknowledge the error of his ways by not considering there is a possibility that we have executed an innocent man or men. That would require that he and other Texans challenge the basic tenets of their belief system based on their misconception of Leviticus 24:17. On a related note, they are fiscal conservatives in name only, as you very appropriately explained in a previous post on Grits this past week.<br /><br />The problem with the criminal justice system in Texas is that we have too many ideologues like Bradley, Perry, and Dewhurst, all of whom our state would be much better without. They carry on the slave-plantation mentality with which the system has been operated for the last 160+ years. Like it or not, though, the changes are a coming....and they know it. Going back to their belief system.... one day God will require an answer of them regarding their denials and deceit. What will they have to offer?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com