home

Death Sentence Tarnished By Conflict of Interest

Charles Hood will be executed on Tuesday unless a court or Texas Gov. Rick Perry acts to prevent his death. In light of allegations of a blatant conflict of interest on the part of the judge who presided over Hood's trial, the execution should be stayed or the death sentence should be commuted.

Lawyers for a Texas inmate facing execution next week filed court papers on Thursday accusing the judge at his double-murder trial of having an affair with the prosecutor. The papers, filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, argue that the relationship between the judge, Verla Sue Holland, and the man who was district attorney of Collin County, Tom O’Connell, should nullify the conviction of the inmate, Charles Hood, in 1990. ...

The petitions include an affidavit from a former assistant district attorney, Matthew Goeller, who said that the six-year relationship between Judge Holland and Mr. O’Connell was “common knowledge” and that it raised “reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially.”

Even supporters of the death penalty should agree that nobody should be sentenced to death by a judge who is sleeping with the prosecutor.

< Friday Open Thread | Reasons to Vote Republican >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I sit your position that Judge Holland (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:46:37 AM EST
    should have presided over no criminal cases brought by the District Attorney's office?

    Correction: "Is it . . . " (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:48:29 AM EST
    Yes. (none / 0) (#4)
    by TChris on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    Yes it is, actually, but in this case the judge was allegedly having an affair with the lawyer who actually prosecuted Hood.  Whether she could ethically sit on criminal cases prosecuted by others is at least open to debate.  There's no question that a judge is disqualified from presiding over a case (civil or criminal) where one of the parties is represented by her lover.

    Parent
    It appears the "affair" was (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    between a trial judge "and the man who was district attorney of Collin County, Tom O'Connell, . . ."  i.e., the elected District Attorney.  

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#7)
    by TChris on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    Thanks for the clarification. (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:14:19 PM EST
    All guilty verdicts won by O'Connell (none / 0) (#3)
    by rilkefan on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:52:47 AM EST
    with that judge presiding would have to be thrown out then.

    Unlikely (none / 0) (#5)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:57:07 AM EST
    Even supporters of the death penalty should agree that nobody should be sentenced to death by a judge who is sleeping with the prosecutor.

    I wouldn't count on that. To death penalty advocates the point is the death, not how someone got on death row.

    Exactly. DP supporters are subhuman. (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    Literally blood-thirsty.

    Me human. You savage.

    That sure makes this topic a lot easier for you, doesn't it?

    Parent

    I can't believe it got this far. (none / 0) (#10)
    by lobary on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    If it was common knowledge in the legal community that the prosecutor and judge were romantically involved, why didn't anyone say something to protect the integrity of the process? They all knew better, and they all were quiet.

    To save something for habeas and (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    request for stay.  See:  incompetence of trial lawyer challenges.

    Parent
    Lawyers protect their own. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:19:26 PM EST
    Certainly, but.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by lobary on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:25:59 PM EST
    Their first priority is to protect the integrity of the process. Seem to me that this could've been handled discreetly.

    Parent
    Yes, I'm with you. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:47:11 PM EST
    My comment was more snarky than I probably should have made it.

    Lawyers are just like the rest of us in that interpersonal relationships get in the way of good judgment, and I'm not just talking about the two love birds here.

    The rest of their "community" at the courthouse also should have acted but didn't because of their relationships with each other and the two.

    Parent

    This is an easy call (none / 0) (#14)
    by aquarian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:26:53 PM EST
    A judge married to the prosecuting attorney would never be allowed to preside over the trial.  There is no principled distinction to be made when participants have an intimate relationship outside of marriage.

    Blatant conflict of interest that rises to the level of corruption and abuse of office -- for both the prosecuting attorney and the judge.  

    What is your opinion of how this will (none / 0) (#15)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    come out? In texas they are "kill" happy. I believe he should get a new trial.

    Recusal? (none / 0) (#18)
    by lobary on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    Of the nine judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, eight served with Judge Holland when she sat on the Court from 1997-2001. If the basis of the appeal is judicial favoritism resulting from an improper relationship, are the appellate judges who served with Judge Holland expected to recuse themselves from the case? What is the standard they should apply to themselves?