Justice perverted

[CAJUNLAWYER]

I'd sure like to know what punishment was meted out to te prosecutors and other lawyers that she communicated with-that sword should swing both ways

 

[shouldazagged]

I was reading an article on this person in the Houston Chronicle and she also:

Actually slipped into the jury room during jury deliberations to tell jurors how to vote in some cases!

This just gets worse and worse! I don't get riled that easily either, but this stinks to high heaven.

As for its being equivalent to a judge taking bribes, as someone stated above, it might be informative to look into that as well. If this woman is guilty on the other allegations, who could put that past her?

I've never seen a case like this, and hope I never do again.

Infuriating!

 

[MSG Glenn]

She should be prosecuted herself - in another state if necessary. The whole TX justice system for miles around will be contaminated. The charge should be a felony & if convicted she should get a heavy fine & prison. I doubt if she would be able to pay the state for all the mistrials that are sure to come.

 

[rburg]

I'm sorry to disagree with you guys. No where in the discussion did I hear anyone suggest that a criminal defendant was wrongly convicted. It does seem the prosecutor wasn't up to speed, and that the judge was significantly more aware of what they should have been doing and asking. But no where is there the suggestion the criminals weren't guilty. She just helped put the bad guys away. Maybe she's missed her calling and should become a law professor.

Where I come from, we kind of want the bad guys in jail or at least convicted. I thought the standard of justice in Texas was to give them a fair trial and then hang them! There is an implication that the trials weren't fair because the judge had her thumb on the scales. But now it seems more like she was just making sure the prosecutor presented a better case than he was able to do on his own. I don't see where she was cheating the criminal. If he was innocent, maybe there'd be a reason to raise some stink. No suggestion that was what took place, she was just training the boy..

I admit that if I were on trial, I'd hate having questions asked that nailed me. But I'm not seeing the questions as being out of line, just that she was helping a maybe incompetent prosecutor do his job.

 

[LVSteve]

I'm sorry to disagree with you guys. No where in the discussion did I hear anyone suggest that a criminal defendant was wrongly convicted. It does seem the prosecutor wasn't up to speed, and that the judge was significantly more aware of what they should have been doing and asking. But no where is there the suggestion the criminals weren't guilty. She just helped put the bad guys away. Maybe she's missed her calling and should become a law professor.

Where I come from, we kind of want the bad guys in jail or at least convicted. I thought the standard of justice in Texas was to give them a fair trial and then hang them! There is an implication that the trials weren't fair because the judge had her thumb on the scales. But now it seems more like she was just making sure the prosecutor presented a better case than he was able to do on his own. I don't see where she was cheating the criminal. If he was innocent, maybe there'd be a reason to raise some stink. No suggestion that was what took place, she was just training the boy..

I admit that if I were on trial, I'd hate having questions asked that nailed me. But I'm not seeing the questions as being out of line, just that she was helping a maybe incompetent prosecutor do his job.

Please point me to where it says a judge is supposed to do anything other than rule on points of law and to oversee an orderly process.

If I lived in that community I would want the justice department in there to clean house. Little point in going to anybody in state.

 

[Xfuzz]

Here is her announcement for the new position she wants.

I could not get the link to transfer.....

 

[Rastoff]

Dick,
You've missed the important aspect; legal procedure and impartiality. In the US, a defendant has the right to an impartial trial. Procedure guarantees that. By dodging the rules of the court, she calls into question every decision she's ever made. It's not that there were innocents being railroaded into jail, her actions open the possibility. It doesn't matter if the prosecutor wasn't the best, the judge has to rule based on the evidence presented and cannot take sides.

 

[ladder13]

I guess if she were Mother Teresa, she wouldn't have resigned.

 

[Grayfox]

I have little doubt that in most cases the defendant was indeed guilty. But her actions have opened the doors so that Texas may chose not to retry them solely due to the cost. In which case the guilty will get out on the streets again free and clear.

 

[GaryS]

Tar, feathers, rail, judge. Some assembly required.

 

[GaryS]

I have little doubt that in most cases the defendant was indeed guilty. But her actions have opened the doors so that Texas may chose not to retry them solely due to the cost. In which case the guilty will get out on the streets again free and clear.

That's the least of it. They'll sue and many will get settlements. There is a case in MA where a state lab chemist falsified drug tests used in trials. She performed up to 40,000 tests in her years working for the state and no one knows how many results she falsified.

At least count 600 convicted people have had their convictions overturned and many are free while the state tries to figure out if they can retry them.

As of two days ago, the ACLU has petitioned the MA Supreme Judicial Court to vacate everyone of the 40,000 convictions she was involved with.

Imagine what that's going to cost the state.

 

[chud333]

Oh, i get it now. Because the judge was doing some "on the job
training" of said prosecutors it should be OK for John Q. Public to
let this one slide. We're the same considerations given to the defense?
After all everyone knows that most all accused
are guilty and deserve whatever they get ?????
Really my friend ???
Wow !! Talk about a Kangaroo Court.

Chuck

 

[the ringo kid]

This is such a tragedy and embaressment to say the very least. This akin to those being given a free ticket at the deaths of Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Dogherty murdered in Benghazi.

 

[Road Rat]

I'm sorry to disagree with you guys. No where in the discussion did I hear anyone suggest that a criminal defendant was wrongly convicted. It does seem the prosecutor wasn't up to speed, and that the judge was significantly more aware of what they should have been doing and asking. But no where is there the suggestion the criminals weren't guilty. She just helped put the bad guys away. Maybe she's missed her calling and should become a law professor.

Where I come from, we kind of want the bad guys in jail or at least convicted. I thought the standard of justice in Texas was to give them a fair trial and then hang them! There is an implication that the trials weren't fair because the judge had her thumb on the scales. But now it seems more like she was just making sure the prosecutor presented a better case than he was able to do on his own. I don't see where she was cheating the criminal. If he was innocent, maybe there'd be a reason to raise some stink. No suggestion that was what took place, she was just training the boy..

I admit that if I were on trial, I'd hate having questions asked that nailed me. But I'm not seeing the questions as being out of line, just that she was helping a maybe incompetent prosecutor do his job.

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!!!!!

 

[Cooter Brown]

But no where is there the suggestion the criminals weren't guilty. She just helped put the bad guys away.

Dick, you're one of my favorite posters around here and I hate to disagree with you. Not sure I ever have before. But I do on this. The suggestion--presumption if you will--that the defendants aren't guilty is the foundation of our legal system. They are to be tried fairly with an impartial judge presiding, not actively taking part in convicting them and tossing them in the greybar Hilton. I'm certain I don't have to tell you that.

I want to see bad guys get their due as well. Most do in the end without shenanagins on the part of prosecutors and judges. If there's a problem with the competence of the prosecutors around there, fix it.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the fiasco in New Orleans last year (Caj started a thread on it). Damn scary stuff goin' on.

 

[Road Rat]

Over the past 20 years or so Texas has become infamous for having to release prisoners that were wrongfully imprisoned!!

Many released from death row!! Scary stuff here.

 

[shouldazagged]

Dick,
You've missed the important aspect; legal procedure and impartiality. In the US, a defendant has the right to an impartial trial. Procedure guarantees that. By dodging the rules of the court, she calls into question every decision she's ever made. It's not that there were innocents being railroaded into jail, her actions open the possibility. It doesn't matter if the prosecutor wasn't the best, the judge has to rule based on the evidence presented and cannot take sides.

Exactly! Heaven knows our justice system is imperfect, but the accused is still entitled to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence unless and until he is proven guilty. That includes judicial impartiality to see that he is given that right.

The "He must be guilty or he wouldn't have been arrested," or "You can look at him and tell if he isn't guilty of this charge he's guilty of something" approach won't fly in this country, thank God.

I want to know what benefit this judge received or anticipated receiving by these shameful maneuvers. A tough reputation to carry her to higher office? Financial reward? There has to have been incentive.

 

[straightshooter1]

Caj said:

I'd sure like to know what punishment was meted out to te prosecutors and other lawyers that she communicated with-that sword should swing both ways.

According to the Chronicle article the Texas Bar was investigating at least one of the prosecutors and it was the prosecutor's statement (confession?) to the Bar that the article cited as to what the Judge did in one case.

So, apparently the Bar is going after the prosecutor(s) and, perhaps, the other lawyers, too.

And they certainly should.

Bob
__________________

 

[zzzippper]

This reply is mind boggling. Not only do you assume that everyone in court is guilty, but you also throw out any pretense of fairness. Innocent until proven guily is a joke in your gulag courtroom.

I'm sorry to disagree with you guys. No where in the discussion did I hear anyone suggest that a criminal defendant was wrongly convicted. It does seem the prosecutor wasn't up to speed, and that the judge was significantly more aware of what they should have been doing and asking. But no where is there the suggestion the criminals weren't guilty. She just helped put the bad guys away. Maybe she's missed her calling and should become a law professor.

Where I come from, we kind of want the bad guys in jail or at least convicted. I thought the standard of justice in Texas was to give them a fair trial and then hang them! There is an implication that the trials weren't fair because the judge had her thumb on the scales. But now it seems more like she was just making sure the prosecutor presented a better case than he was able to do on his own. I don't see where she was cheating the criminal. If he was innocent, maybe there'd be a reason to raise some stink. No suggestion that was what took place, she was just training the boy..

I admit that if I were on trial, I'd hate having questions asked that nailed me. But I'm not seeing the questions as being out of line, just that she was helping a maybe incompetent prosecutor do his job.

 

[ladder13]

So, to sum up the "they're all guilty" theory.

Better a hundred innocents go to jail than one guilty person get off.