Home > Crime and Consequences
Should you get more than one bite at the apple
Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction. Yesterday Ohio tried to execute Romell Broom. Like Texas, Ohio uses the lethal injection to carry out executions. Naturally, that requires injections, which requires needles and veins. Mr. Broom’s veins are not in the best of shape, and they had trouble getting a needle in. They tried for two hours before the warden called the governor and told him it just might cruel to continue trying. The governor agreed, and they decided to try again next week.
I realize those who favor the death penalty are probably not going to get too worked up over this. However, some might realize just how much pain that must have involved. Unfortunately, I have had to watch while trained medical personnel (which people at the prison certainly aren’t) tried to locate a vein. For most people, the limit is 4 or 5 tries. You can only guess how many times they stuck Mr. Broom. Apparently, he even tried to help them. I’m sure after awhile he was hoping they would go ahead and finish it.
As you might guess, Mr. Broom’s lawyers are now trying to block his execution, arguing it would be cruel and unusual to try again. There appears to be no precedent - apparently, most states have been able to do it the first time. The constitution forbids “cruel and unusual punishment”, and the courts will have to determine if a second attempt qualifies.
I’m going to be interested to see how this turns out. One thing I’m willing to bet on is that Mr. Broom is not going to be executed next week as currently planned.
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment |
Will fingerprints become obsolete?
The Senate Judiciary committee held a hearing last week on forensics in the criminal justice system. The focus was mainly on what to with the recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences in their recent report.
One of the witnesses was the city of Houston’s chief of police. In answering a question he suggested moving toward an increased use of DNA evidence. Specifically, he noted how much more reliable DNA evidence would be than fingerprints in prosecuting property crimes. He has a point - the question is whether state’s will ever devote the resources necessary to processing all crimes for DNA evidence. As it stands now, “touch” DNA is almost never processed or utilized; the use of DNA is limited to serious crimes, which generally means rapes and murders. There’s a backlog now - just imagine what it would be if you started routinely collecting DNA evidence.
I’ve written before about the increasing acceptance of the fact that fingerprints are not as reliable as people have been led to believe. There is no doubt that fingerprint identification is extremely reliable when you are comparing complete prints. The problem is with the type of prints usually left at crime scenes. If DNA was used more often we might find out just how unreliable (or reliable) they really are.
I’m sure its a long way off, but I think the police chief may be on to something; some day there may no longer be a need to rely on fingerprints.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment |
Mexico takes the plunge
I’m surprised this hasn’t received more coverage. Mexico recently decriminalized the possession of small amounts of drugs. It is now legal in Mexico to possess small amounts of drugs - not just marijuana, but also drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and others. Specifically, the amounts include a half gram of cocaine. Five grams of marijuana, 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 grams of meth and .015 milligrams of LSD.
Such action appears contrary to aggressive stance taken on drugs - often referred to as “the war on drugs”. Mexico isn’t giving up though. They are recognizing a reality that others have already discovered; locking up drug users has accomplished nothing. Drug use has not decreased; instead, Mexico’s prisons are at 200% capacity. They simply have no more room - something most States are also having to deal with. It appears they aren’t turning a blind eye, but instead will try to get users into a rehabilitation program.
Not surprisingly, there are a lot of people who aren’t happy with this change. Border states - like Texas, are worried about people going over the border to get high. Although it’s not as easy to get across as it used to be, I have no doubt that is a legitimate concern. Only time will tell how significant a problem will be.
I don’t this is going to be the last program aimed at decreasing use, and moving away from punishment. Houston recently adapted a similar approach for first time DWI offenders. It will be interesting to see how this works. I’m sure there will be a lot of people watching.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment |
Is Innocence a technicality?
The Supreme Court this week delivered an unusual decision in the case of Troy Davis. Using a procedure that hasn’t been used for 50 years, the Court sent the case back to the District Court to allow Davis an opportunity to prove his innocence and avoid being executed. This case has been bouncing around for a couple of years, and so far Davis has been unable to obtain any relief even though all but one of the witnesses against him have recanted their testimony.
The fact that the Supreme Court took action on a direct writ of habeas corpus is news enough.What is also unusual is the blistering dissent from Justices Scalia and Thomas.
“This court has neverheld that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”
He is right - As unbelievable as it may sound, the Supreme Court has never said its unconstitutional to execute someone who is innocent. It appears that Justice Scalia wants to make sure everyone knows where he stands: as long as you get a fair trial, you shouldn’t gripe. In his view, the system is set up to provide a fair trial, and shouldn’t worry about the results. I don’t think I’m alone in seeing the absurdity of that.
There is no doubt that one of the primary goals of the system is to provide a fair trial. However, as we have seen repeatedly over the last few years, sometimes trial end up with the wrong result. In many of the exonerations there was nothing wrong with the trial - except for convicting an innocent person. To say there is no redress for that is baffling.
It looks like innocence is being reduced to a technicality. Apparently an unimportant one at that. To say that its not unconstitutional to execute someone who is innocent is something I suppose only a Supreme Court judge can understand.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Innovative approach to drug dealing
When police and prosecutors talk about dealing with the drug problem the standard approach is increased prosecution and longer sentences. That has been the approach for years, even though it has been hugely unsuccessful. Drug use has not decreased; the only thing that approach has done is fill the prisons, which States are now learning is financially devastating.
Drug use is a complex problem that defies a simple approach. Alternative approaches focusing on rehabilitation have generally been rejected because they are not perceived as tough on crime. In political races its all too common to see a candidate attacked as being “soft on crime”.
Seattle area officials have taken a bold step do combat drug dealing in their communities. According the Seattle Times officials recently held a meeting where the invited known drug dealers. The purpose of the meeting was to lay out of the evidence against them, which was the result of a year long investigation. Instead of hauling them off to jail though they gave them an option; they would provide them with the help and resources they needed to turn the lives around. If they did, they would stay out of jail; if not, they would be coming after them.
Apparently Seattle is not the first to try out this approach. A community in North Carolina tried this in 2004 with the help of a law professor at John Jay College in New York. According to those involved the program was successful. If that’s true you have to wonder why the idea hasn’t caught on in other places.
It will be interesting to see how this works. If its even marginally successful the benefits would be huge. Not only could they make a dent in drug use, they could save significant sums of money spent in incarcerating the dealers and users, as well as the collateral costs of locking them up. Given the current economic situation that should be reason enough for considering such an approach.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Reducing the budget by releasing inmates?
So far Texas has avoided the budget crisis that some states are experiencing. It may only be a matter of time, and state agencies are understandably looking at ways to trim their budgets. One of the biggest budgets is the Texas Department of criminal Justice. They have suggested one way to save money is by releasing elderly, nonviolent inmates. As with most people, the cost of providing medical care is higher for that population. According to TDCJ., the average medical cost for such inmates is $4000, which is the amount spent on outside service providers. Using that average, they estimate a savings of $29 million a year — no small amount.
California has also reached the same conclusion. Their budget crisis is serious, and they have focused on getting people out of prison. That includes elderly inmates, as well as those who are medically incapacitated.
I’m sure the savings would not amount to the full $29 million, because somebody must still provide those services. However the fact that such a plan is being considered at all is surprising. The days of “locking them up and throwing away the key” may no gone. While no one is suggesting people shouldn’t be punished, there is reason to question incarcerating someone who no longer is a threat to society. I’m sure this is not the last proposal aimed at reducing the prison population. Who would have guessed that?
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment |
A new approach for DWI cases
Over the years “getting tough on DWI” has been a standard platform for all politicians. Legislators rarely miss a chance to “toughen” the penalties; whether it be increased fines, surcharges or other collateral punishments. Opposing those efforts is sure to generate a torrent of criticism.
As with most other issues, writing the law and applying it are two different things. Judges and attorneys recognize the enormous burdens being placed on DWI offender, who are often people who have never been in the justice system before. Unfortunately, there is no room for discretion. So this makes the recent action taken in Harris County all the more surprising.
The Harris County District Attorney recently announced that it would start granting pre-trial diversion for all first time DWI offenders - the program is called operation DIVERT. The goal is to prevent those people from re-offending; they apparently have recognized what everyone else already knows. The threat of punishment is not always enough.
Although I don’t know all the specifics, the reports indicates the aim is on education, restitution, and treatment when necessary. It’s a bold move, that could pay off big. Only time will tell.
Now that the ground has been broken, it will be interesting to see if others follow.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Why you haven’t heard from me
I haven’t written anything in awhile and wanted to let you know why. I accompanied my son on a backpacking trip to New Mexico, and was gone for almost two weeks. I had a lot to do before going, including stressing over whether I could make it through walking 6-9 miles a day with a loaded backpack in the mountains. When I got back, I had two weeks of work to catch up on.
If you are interested in seeing what I learned on that trip you can go here.
Hopefully I will get back to posting more regularly. I hope everyone else is having a great summer.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Is President Obama really a subversive?
Most people have heard about the Federal Supermax prison in Florence, CO. It is supposed to be the most secure prison in the United States; if you are a terrorist or someone who is considered really dangerous this is where you end up. As you can imagine prisoners there are closely monitored; that includes their reading material.
According to the Associated Press an inmate recently requested two books written by President Obama: “Dreams from my Father” and “The Audacity of Hope”. The request was denied because prison officials determined there passages in the books that could damage national security. The passages were not identified - simply the pages where they were.
Many times people in government don’t think about they do them; this is a prime example. Do you really think the Bureau of Prisons wants to say President Obama has written material that is detrimental to national security; the security he is now in charge of?
You gotta figure the comedians and talk journalists are going to love this one.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Jumping the Gun
The Dallas Morning News recently had a story about an English teacher who had been accused of sexually assaulting a student. Unfortunately, there is nothing unusual about that. However, the story quickly took an unusual turn. The following day the alleged victim contacted the reporter who covered the story, and explained that nothing had happened with the teacher. Instead, she said only stated something happened after the police officer refused to accept her denials.
You might wonder how that can happen. The fact is that does, and there probably a number of reasons for that. Most people are intimidated by police officers; young people are probably more intimidated. Most have been taught to respect authority, which certainly includes police.
As this case demonstrates, sometimes police won’t take no for answer. In that situation, you have two options; either stick to your story, and be uncomfortable, or tell them what they already believe. You might wonder why they don’t just get up and leave, but do you really think a teenager is going to do that.
Many times police investigators have made up their mind about what happened. Many times they are right, but when they aren’t bad things can happen. Psychologists call this “overconfidence basis”; you are convinced you are right, and refused to accept the possibility you might be wrong. It can creep up, without any conscious effort - in fact, most people don’t realize it’s happening. It’s a dangerous thing to do when someone’s freedom and liberty are on the line. You often hear police officers say they can tell when someone is lying to them. There is no doubt they have a lot of experience in interviewing people. However, the fact is that no one, no matter how experienced, is good at discerning the truth. Research suggests that at best some of us may be right slightly more often than we wrong.
It’s not hard to uncover the roots of wrongful convictions; this is it. In almost every case there was evidence that could established someone’s innocence. The evidence was either ignored, or not followed up on because the police were sure they had the right person. Sometimes they were absolutely sure, which points out another problem. The more convinced you are of something doesn’t mean you are more likely to be right.
Police officers have to make decisions, and form judgments. You can’t expect them not to. Like anyone else, they can make mistakes. The best we can hope for is they recognize the possibility that they may not be right.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment |
The impact of pregnancy
Its not unusual to see a pregnant defendant in court. Some end getting sent to prison; it would probably surprise many people to learn just how many pregnant females there are in the prison system. In some cases, a defendant’s pregnancy may be a factor that is taken into consideration when deciding on a sentence. You would expect when that happens, the person would be treated more leniently. Apparently, that’s not always the case though.
Recently a U.S. District Judge in Portland created a controversy by taking the opposite approach. He was concerned that the pregnant immigrant defendant - who was HIV positive - might not receive proper pre-natal treatment. So instead of the relatively short sentence that would have normally been imposed, he imposed a longer sentence. The calculated the sentence to ensure that she was still in jail when her baby was delivered.
As you can guess, the sentence was supported by some and denounced by others. A direct appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals. While that was pending, the judge reconsidered - but only after INS officials intervened. They located housing for the woman, as well care for her until her baby is delivered.
There is no doubt the judge in this case had good intentions; he wanted to ensure the baby had the best possible chance of being born HIV free. To do that, he had to basically punish the mother. Normally, family circumstances are not taken into account in federal court, even in those situations where it is appropriate. I expect when the case gets to the appeals court - if it does - the decision will be over turned.
This was an unusual situation, where the judge was not trying to punish the woman; yet that was the effect of this sentence. So when, if ever, would such a sentence be appropriate?
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
How safe are you?
Today’s paper has two articles that ought to cause anyone to wonder just how private their personal information really is. The first is a story about a prosecutor in Colorado who decided to go after illegal immigrants. His tactic - issue a subpoena for all the records of a tax preparation service that deals with mostly hipanics. He used those records to locate those who were in the country illegally, and some who were using false identification documents. The result - a number of hardworking people who had been in the country for years, and were trying to be responsible citizens are now facing deportation. You would think paying taxes is a good thing, but apparently not.
The second story on its face may not stir the same emotions. An Islamic foundation discovered that they were being illegally wiretapped - that is, the government placed taps on their phones without a warrant. The group discovered this when a classified document was mistakenly turned over that detailed the activities. The group did the right thing, and returned the document back. They then did what you are supposed to do; seek it through the courts. Of course, the administration is fighting against turning it over again. A federal judge saw no reason why it shouldn’t be turned over, and the government is appealing that. By the way - for all those who thought the Obama administration was going to be all about civil rights, think again.
What do these two stories have in common. They show that information you think is private, may not be. There were probably a lot of law abiding people in Colorado whose financial information was combed through - would you be happy with that. If you can issue a blanket subpoena for a tax preparation service, what would prevent a blanket subpoena to your bank, or even your employer. There of course is something to prevent that - the constitution. That’s effective only so far as people are willing to enforce it though.
On the wiretaps, the warrant requirement is there to protect innocent people. If the government can tap your phones simply because they think its important, there is no protection. Whose to say your conversations haven’t been listened in on?
There is a famous quote from one of the founding fathers that is something like “Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither”. (I didn’t look it up, so forgive me if I got it wrong) The point is that we enjoy certain freedoms, and there is a cost to that - one our founding fathers thought was worth paying. They were concerned about the very things we are seeing here - unchecked government power.
Despite what many seem to think, the constitution is not a bad thing. Unfortunately, we too often don’t realize that until its too late.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment |
What do voter ID and Innocence Have in Common?
I have had a number of things going on the last several weeks, and have not had an opportunity to post on this blog. There also hasn’t been that much to comment on. However, the legislature is in session, and you can always count on them to give you something to talk about.
I understand the legislative process is not the most efficient. Most of the time that is a good thing, because it prevents a lot of ridiculous laws from being passed. However, it is extremely frustrating when legitimate bills are killed for reasons that have nothing to do with their merits. As everyone now knows, the Democrats in the House dug in their heels to prevent passage of a voter ID bill. In doing so, they effectively killed a number of needed revisions to the criminal justice system.
For the last several years innocence related reforms have never progressed all the way through the system. This year was different, because of a number of factors which came together in the form of a perfect storm. Agreements were reached on eyewitness reform, and revisions to the post-conviction process to deal with cases based on bad science. There were also revisions aimed at studying the process of wrongful convictions and how to avoid them. Remarkably, there was little opposition to those measures, and they appeared all but done. However, you can never rest until the session is over, and the reason was painfully pointed out this week. The tactics used to defeat the ID bill also effectively defeated these all measures. Some may end up getting passed, but probably most won’t. As a result we will go two more years without addressing a very real problem, and how to deal with it.
What frustrates me the most of all is the political rhetoric. Politicians are quick to accuse various groups as being one issue voters (think abortion). Yet they did the same thing. Their opposition to voter ID impacted a number of other measures, which seem far more important. I hope it was worth it to them.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Don’t skip jury duty in Collin County
A Collin County man was recently released from jail after serving 83 days in jail. The charge was that he skipped jury duty! Apparently, in Collin County if you don’t show up for jury duty a warrant was issued. The person was picked up on that warrant, and then lost in the system. He tried to get an appointed lawyer, but was denied by clerk. He may have stayed longer if he had not sent a letter to the newspaper, who checked into the case.
Many people might be surprised to find out you can be arrested for not showing up for jury duty. I doubt many counties do that; in fact, in many counties, nothing is done if you don’t show up. In some, they may try to collect a fine. I don’t know how long Collin County has been doing this, but situations like this are always a possibility when someone ends up in the criminal justice. On the other hand, I bet their show up rate is pretty good.
Jury service is an obligation of every citizen, and should be considered a privilege. You are asked to decide a fellow citizen’s fate, which is a serious responsibility. Too many people look at as something to avoid. We should remember how lucky we are to have a system that uses juries. If you don’t think so, just look at those countries where everything is decided by the government.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment |
Banishment?
I always thought banishment was unconstitutional - something about freedom of association and travel. I’ve had a number of clients offer to leave the County or State, but that has usually not gone over well. Apparently Georgia takes a view. According to a recent article 500 people have been banished from Houston County, Georgia since 1998; that amounts to 1 out of every 60 cases.
I’m still not sure about the constitutionality of the practice, but even if its proper I have doubts about its effectiveness. Aren’t you just pushing your problems off to someone else; while it may benefit one county, does it really benefit society. For those who have ties to the community, are you making things worse? You are forcing them to leave family, and all the relationships they have developed.
I certainly see the benefit in some case; many problems are the result of who you hang around. The number goal in many cases is to get a probationer away from the group he is associating with. You can do that in other ways though. More importantly, if you have to force them to find a new group, are you really accomplishing anything. Won’t there be the same type of groups wherever they end up. The bottom line is the person has to want to succeed; that’s not something you can force on anyone.
Probation is designed to help people change behavior when necessary. There are better ways to accomplish that than sending someone off. We seem to have to figured that here; maybe we are just smarter in Texas.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment |
Lessons not learned
It’s amazing how short the memory of some people is. Especially when it comes to issues such as catching criminals. In the 1990’s Dallas PD fired an officer, Randy Sundquist, for lying. He was part of unit that investigated drug crimes. They arrested a lot of people; many were probably guilty, but more than a few were not. According to one prosecutor who testified at one his hearings, she hated working with him because his stories were so incredible. In fact, they had a name for his unit - the bushmen. The name came from their proclivity to hide in the bushes and catch drug dealers. According to the prosecutor, they had an amazing ability to see things at long distances, on starless nights, despite obstructions in their way.You can read more about the case here.
They say time has a way of healing of all things. Well, believe it not, in 2002, Dallas PD re-hired Sunquist. He eventually made his way to head of his unit; probably no doubt because he made a lot of arrests. The inevitable happened, and he was caught lying again. Prosecutors even went to the extreme of sending out letter saying that his testimony could not be trusted in court. There is no telling what the final impact will be; I’m sure many of his cases were legitimate, but the problem will determining which ones those are.
I’m sure I have the same question that many have - how does someone fired for lying end getting re-hired, and even promoted? I understand giving people a second chance, but at the very least wouldn’t you put them in a position where they couldn’t repeat their behavior. In police work there is often no one other than officer and the suspect. Since everyone believes the officer, its easy to get away with bending the truth. Thankfully most officers are honest, but for those that aren’t the results can be disastrous.
I would imagine Sundquist made a lot of arrests and closed a lot of cases. Sometimes things are too good to be true - even when it involves catching criminals. If nothing else this story reminds us we need to be vigilant, and not so quick to accept things merely because of who is saying them.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Impeachment hearing in Austin
The impeachment resolution on Justice Sharon Keller appears to be gathering steam. A hearing is scheduled this afternoon on a resolution that would authorize impeachment hearings. The chairman of the committee that will conduct the hearing has requested input from the public, and I’m guessing there will be a sizable audience.
I wonder if there will be anyone opposing the resolution? So far her supporters have been awfully quiet.
On a related note, the a bill authorizing an increase in the compensation for wrongfully convicted individuals was approved last week with only one negative week. That is only one of a several innocence related bill that may come of this legislative session. Those bills include revisions to eyewitness procedures as well as interrogations.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Just kidding - it really wasn’t murder
Last week Bridget Lee was released from prison in Alabama after spending 9 months for murder. According to the pathologist, Corinne Stern, the infant was suffocated. It turns out the infant was stillborn - having died from complications caused by pneumonia.
Lee’s attorney apparently did what all attorneys should do - he obtained his own expert to review the autopsy. He then presented his findings to the District Attorney, who to his credit took them seriously. He had other experts review the case; by the time it was over, six independent experts determined there was no murder.
There are couple of things that trouble me about this case. One is that Dr. Stern is still at work - she is now conducting autopsies in Webb County. The other is the apparent complete lack of review of such findings. The autopsy in this case was signed off by the other pathologists in the medical examiner’s office. You would think that if they looked at the findings at all, they would have questions; one of her findings was bruising on the face and mouth, which turned out to be decomposition. Apparently the other signatures don’t mean what you think. I guess they are signing off on the form of the report, and not the results.
Alabama authorities are reviewing the other autopsies she performed while there; let’s hope there was an isolated incident, and there aren’t others in prison who shouldn’t be there.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Yet another claim of police misconduct
Fort Worth recently settled a case against the police department and officer Miller. The suit was filed by a deaf man whose nose was broken during a stop. What did he do to warrant that? He tried to tell the officer he couldn’t hear. As with the case of Ryan Moats. the car video recorded the incident. It shows the officer yanking the person out of the car and promptly slamming his head into the trunk - something he repeats a couple more times.
The officer explained that he thought the person was reaching for a gun. In fact, he was reaching for a card identifying him as deaf. Even giving the officer the benefit of the doubt, I can’t imagine why you would have to slam someone heads into the trunk - especially more than once.
The city settled the case for $50,000 - which I think is cheap. The city explains they now have an interpreter who can be called to the scene. That’s great, but it wouldn’t have prevented this incident. You would have to first know someone couldn’t communicate before you called in the interpreter.
Are these aberrant acts, or something more serious? I don’t know the answer. But I do know it shows the problems you have when you jump to a conclusion without knowing all the facts.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment |
A historic first
Yesterday a District Court judge in Austin - Charlie Baird - issued an opinion formally exonerating Timothy Cole of rape. What’s historic is that Cole died in prison; as far as I know, no one has ever been exonerated after their death.
Cole was convicted of raping MIchelle Mallin, who had positively identified him. Mallin was present at the hearing - flying in from out of state with her husband - and has been a vocal supporter of Cole’s family. She also has become a vocal supporter of innocence reform legislation.
Baird was critical of the police investigation, which he said zeroed in on Cole and ignored clues that could have led investigators elsewhere. He also took the opportunity to pitch legislative reform, including revising eyewitness identification procedures, and improving access to the courts for those pursuing innocence claims.
Cole’s case has a happy ending - largely because of the resolve of his family. They were able to convince the Texas Innocence Project to take the case - I doubt it took much persuasion. The actual rapist had been trying for several years to take responsibility, and exonerate. He had written letters to everyone he could think of, and they were all ignored. Unfortunately, that is not uncommon. Authorities have to deal with hundreds of such claims - and the vast majority are groundless. However, some have merit, and they get dismissed far too easily. Somehow, we need a system to identify those claims that need to be investigated.
Timothy Cole was lucky (if you can call dying in prison a convicted rapist lucky) - there’s no doubt there are others that are not so lucky. I believe the legislature has finally realized - after years of prodding - that something needs to be done. This may be the year we see a start - no doubt due in large part to cases like Timothy Cole.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
What is going on in El Paso?
A newly elected District judge was recently indicted in El Paso and charged with offering to dismiss cases in exchange for money and sexual favors. Manuel Barraza has only been in office for 3 months. It didn’t take him long to get in the swing of things; according to the indictment, Barraza offered to intervene in a felony case for the friend of an undercover agent in exchange for having sex with him. He gave her the name of a lawyer, who had the case transferred to Barraza’s court.
Fortunately, conduct like this doesn’t happen often. When it does though, it is usually judges who have been on the bench for a substantial amount. Here, Barraza must have been doing something from day one if they already an undercover agent working on February 5; there had to be an investigation before that, and the agent had to get in place to be approached. It makes you wonder if he got elected with the plan of using the office for his own personal gain and gratification.
There may be a more sinister explanation. At least one blogger has wondered if Barraza was elected with the help of drug smugglers. Such corruption is common across the border, and he wonders if it has moved here.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Was it simply the wrong person getting elected, or was there something more to it. Hopefully, we will find out the answer.
Latest comments
Waco is a great place to be a Jail-House Lawyer. With Waco’s high-crime rate and all the scum-bags in & out of the Hwy 6 Jail……Jail-House Defense Lawyers are doing just fine. You just got to laugh at this situation. What do you
... read the full comment by Fred | Comment on Should you get more than one bite at the apple Read Should you get more than one bite at the apple
They need to be able to follow Utah’s lead and let Mr Winchester assist. No vein? No problem. All you need is a heart, oh wait considering what he did he could not possibly have a heart. To bad that little girl did not have any 8th Amendment rights.
... read the full comment by Rob | Comment on Should you get more than one bite at the apple Read Should you get more than one bite at the apple
Cruel and unusual? Cruel and unusual would be cutting off the part of his body that sexually assaulted his victims and give him his lethal injection there, all wihtout pain medications. Not finding a vein is neither cruel nor unusual. Happens in many dodtor’s
... read the full comment by Sammy | Comment on Should you get more than one bite at the apple Read Should you get more than one bite at the apple
This is ABSOLUTELY Cruel for society to have to had fed and provided for this criminal since his crimes in 1984 when he raped and murders one 14 yr old girl, and raped and assaulted 4 others that prosecutors discovered. He had raped and robbed and been
... read the full comment by AnAverageGuy | Comment on Should you get more than one bite at the apple Read Should you get more than one bite at the apple