NationStates Jolt Archive

From Democracy Now (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070810163017811)

Thursday, August 9th, 2007

The Case of Kenneth Foster: Texas Prepares to Execute Man for Driving a Car Near Scene of Murder --Democracy Now

Three weeks from today, a 30-year-old African American man on death row in Texas is scheduled to be executed. Kenneth Foster was sentenced to death ten years ago for the murder of Michael LaHood, a white man. The trial judge, the prosecutor, and the jury that sentenced him to die admit he never killed anyone. Foster is scheduled to be executed under a controversial Texan law known as the law of parties. The law imposes the death penalty on anybody involved in a crime where a murder occurred. In Foster's case he was driving a car with three passengers, one of whom left the car, got into an altercation and shot LaHood dead. We broadcast a rare interview of Kenneth Foster from death row and speak to his family in Texas as well a journalist who has closely followed his case. [includes rush transcript] Three weeks from today, a 30 year-old African American man on death row in Texas is scheduled to be executed. Kenneth Foster was sentenced to death ten years ago in a San Antonio court for the murder of Michael LaHood, a white man, in 1996. What makes Foster's case unique is that he didn't commit or plan the murder. Even the trial judge, the prosecutor, and the jury that sentenced him to die admit he never killed anyone.

Foster is scheduled to be executed under a controversial Texan law known as the law of parties. The law imposes the death penalty on anybody involved in a crime where a murder occurred. In Foster's case he was driving a car with three passengers, one of whom left the car, got into an altercation and shot a Michael LaHood dead. At the time of the shooting, Kenneth Foster was 80 feet away in his car. Since Foster's original trial, the other passengers have testified that Foster had no idea a shooting was going to take place.

On Tuesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied death row prisoner Kenneth Foster's final appeal. In a six-to-three decision the appeals court denied Foster's final writ of habeas corpus. Foster's last recourse is the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and Texas Governor Rick Perry. According to Foster's criminal attorney, Keith Hampton, five of the seven board members must recommend clemency in order for Governor Perry to consider granting it. Kenneth Foster's scheduled execution date is August 30th.


If you ask me, this is fucked up beyond all recognition. Your thoughts?

EDIT: I guess people don't have many thoughts to contribute.

Dontcha love Texas?

Apparently, everything is bigger in Texas. Now even the ignorance and stupidity is greater. Who the hell voted for that law anyway?

Well, we now know that seven "judges" are guilty of the murder (or at least attempted murder) of Kenneth Foster....

This really ought to go to the Supreme Court -- that law is shit.

And this is why the death penalty cannot be allowed to be an option, those of you who favour it. This is an innocent man, whom we all KNOW is an innocent man, yet he is still being kept on Death Row so he can be killed for something he never did. He is being murdered by the state, and it is horrendously disgusting.

Why hasn't he been released yet? If he's innocent he ought to be!

What do you expect from the state that regularly executes the mentally retarded?

That's where the so popular idea "Increase the punishments!" leads.

Next time you post "They should give ten, no, fifteen years for [insert crime here]!", remember this is the result.

Well, we now know that seven "judges" are guilty of the murder (or at least attempted murder) of Kenneth Foster....

Agreed.

If you ask me, this is fucked up beyond all recognition. Your thoughts?

EDIT: I guess people don't have many thoughts to contribute.

fucked up? yes. but what happened to the other three?

Well, we now know that seven "judges" are guilty of the murder (or at least attempted murder) of Kenneth Foster....

except....not.

That's just wrong. I wonder what the actual shooter and the other two passengers got. Was it executions all around or is Texas law tougher on a party to a murder than a murderer?

This really ought to go to the Supreme Court -- that law is shit.

it is, however, unfortunatly, entirely constitutional. There is a well founded principle in american law that says that if you are directly involved in the commission of a violent felony (except manslaughter) that results in the forseeable death of another person, you are guilty of murder. ANd if the legal punishment for murder is death, then anyone involved in the commission of a violent felony that results in the death of another can be sentenced to death.

It is, unfortunatly, entirely legal.

And this is why the death penalty cannot be allowed to be an option, those of you who favour it.

No, it isn't.

This is an innocent man, whom we all KNOW is an innocent man

The fact that he is being punished in this "law of parties" nonsense for a crime he didn't commit -- THAT is the problem here. It doesn't matter if the punishment was execution, life in prison, a day in jail, a 10$ fine.

It's cause he's black, innit?

That's seriously fucked up. Especially since, to quote the article "the other passengers have testified that Foster had no idea a shooting was going to take place".

He's getting killed for a crime he didn't commit that he didn't know was going to happen? Seriously, what the hell?

Not called the "stinking unwiped asshole of america" for nothing.

The fact that he is being punished in this "law of parties" nonsense for a crime he didn't commit -- THAT is the problem here. It doesn't matter if the punishment was execution, life in prison, a day in jail, a 10$ fine.

Yes, it's just that murder as punishment attracts attention. And it also adds irreversibility, unlike lesser things.

I agree, though, on what is the problem.

Yes, it's just that murder as punishment attracts attention. And it also adds irreversibility, unlike lesser things.

Have you ever been in prison?

It's not "reversible." You can be let out, but that's not reversal: You can't get your lost years back. Or your anal virginity, for that matter.

As I said, the idea that someone can be punished for murder because he participated in a crime that resulted in the death of an individual, even if that person did not actually kill that individual, is nothing new. It is also not at all limited to texas.

Texas calls it "the law of parties", other places call it the felony murder rule. really the same thing. It's true in a lot of places. If you are involved in a crime, and that crime results in the death of someone, you are guilty of murder, even if you weren't the one who killed him.

Yay, bring race into it. Obviously its always a factor.

Prove he had no knowledge.

Yay, bring race into it. Obviously its always a factor.

Prove he had no knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Yay, bring race into it. Obviously its always a factor.

Prove he had no knowledge.

From the OP.

Since Foster's original trial, the other passengers have testified that Foster had no idea a shooting was going to take place.

You can be let out, but that's not reversal: You can't get your lost years back
In no way arguing for it. I talked about publicity impact - not the impact on person.

However, the difference is that murder is a good way to eliminate the risk of victim writing appeals, publicity going up and saving him, parole or whatever. Quick murder for being suspected of walking near the crime scene is the Ultimate Patriotic Way of disseminating the judgment.


Idiotic law and death as the result won't be particularly frustrating, though, it's another indication of system's idiocy. What is frustrating is how everyone will forget about it in a few days, as another two hollywood actors go coupling and grab all the attention; an indication of people's indifference.

List your names, those who think you'll remember this after a week.

I am shocked by this. surely President Bush could intervene in such a matter?
as a Brit i dont know how the american system works, but this is crazy.
we had a thing like that in england back in the early 50's -the timothy evans case, where two people who were together commiting a crime, and one of them shot & killed a policeman. the one who shot the policeman was underage at the time of the crime, so he couldn't be prosecuted for murder. the other man was able to be prosecuted. he was found guilty of murder and despite the fact that he was known to be innocent of the actual shooting, there was the question of whether he knew that the younger man was carrying a gun. he was sentenced to death and hung. the reason was probably because his friend killed a policeman. this caused a great outcry at the time and for many years. the man has since been given a posthoumus pardon. the story was made into a film in recent years called "let him have it"
This case sounds different as the person wasn't going out to commit a crime in the first place. is there a website where you can see the info & sign a petition.
can't we as nation states players get such a petition together and storm the white house and the texan governors house with emails to stop this injustice ?

Again, the US system of, um, justice is full of surprises. But not unexpected ones.

Nuke USA.

Am I missing something significant here?

The article quoted in the OP says

The law imposes the death penalty on anybody involved in a crime where a murder occurred.
(Emphasis added)

So what crime was Foster involved in? The murder is not, nor can it be, the crime for this rule of law to apply. Note - I am not justifying the death penalty, but there does appear to be a gap between the presentation of the case and the facts that must have been judged to apply for this rule of law to be used.

Again, the US system of, um, justice is full of surprises. But not unexpected ones.

Nuke USA.

Now now, we're not ALL assholes.

More precision is needed here.

This really ought to go to the Supreme Court -- that law is shit.I agree. Capital punishment for a more material accomplice would, I think, still be a stretch... but this? That's "cruel and unusual" if ever I've seen it.

In fact, while I'm not an expert on death penalty jurisprudence, I'm pretty sure this violates the spirit if not the letter of the doctrine that it should only be used to punish murder.

Again, the US system of, um, justice is full of surprises. But not unexpected ones.

Nuke USA.

Nuke Texas.

Or give it back to Mexico. The harshest sentence in Mexican law is 40 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Mexico).

I agree. Capital punishment for a more material accomplice would, I think, still be a stretch... but this? That's "cruel and unusual" if ever I've seen it.

In fact, while I'm not an expert on death penalty jurisprudence, I'm pretty sure this violates the spirit if not the letter of the doctrine that it should only be used to punish murder.

Capital punishment for a material accomplice would not necessarily be a stretch, depending greatly on the actual degree of involvement of the accomplice. Someone that kidnaps a victim that is then killed by an accomplice to the kidnapping is, in my view, as guilty of murder as the actual killer. However where simply gave a ride to a killer to the scene of the murder, it would fall, in my view again, to the prosecution to prove that this person knew of the intent to kill at the time that they aided the killer. (This seems to be lacking in this case).

However there is a rider to this latter position. If the person was a willing and knowing accomplice to some other crime (say robbery), during the performance of which a murder occurred, then by both the letter and the spirit of the law, they are guilty of murder.

Capital punishment for a material accomplice would not necessarily be a stretch, depending greatly on the actual degree of involvement of the accomplice.Yeah, that's why I'm not pressing it. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty to begin with, so extending it to material accomplices is already suspect... but not something I would challenge on existing legal doctrine. There may also be, as you suggest, cases in which the punishment would arguably fit the crime.

I only mention it so as to distinguish it from the current case: this guy cannot even properly be termed an "accomplice," and we're going to kill him for it? Fuck, I'm not even sure he should have gotten jail time. How about some simple probation, with one condition: find better friends.

If you ask me, this is fucked up beyond all recognition. Your thoughts?

EDIT: I guess people don't have many thoughts to contribute.

Wow...

I only mention it so as to distinguish it from the current case: this guy cannot even properly be termed an "accomplice," and we're going to kill him for it? Fuck, I'm not even sure he should have gotten jail time. How about some simple probation, with one condition: find better friends.

There still remains that question as to how this rule applies to him at all. Was he a party to some other criminal activity? If so, what?

it is, however, unfortunatly, entirely constitutional. There is a well founded principle in american law that says that if you are directly involved in the commission of a violent felony (except manslaughter) that results in the forseeable death of another person, you are guilty of murder. ANd if the legal punishment for murder is death, then anyone involved in the commission of a violent felony that results in the death of another can be sentenced to death.

It is, unfortunatly, entirely legal.

As I said, the idea that someone can be punished for murder because he participated in a crime that resulted in the death of an individual, even if that person did not actually kill that individual, is nothing new. It is also not at all limited to texas.

Texas calls it "the law of parties", other places call it the felony murder rule. really the same thing. It's true in a lot of places. If you are involved in a crime, and that crime results in the death of someone, you are guilty of murder, even if you weren't the one who killed him.

I am shocked by this. surely President Bush could intervene in such a matter?
as a Brit i dont know how the american system works, but this is crazy.
we had a thing like that in england back in the early 50's -the timothy evans case, where two people who were together commiting a crime, and one of them shot & killed a policeman. the one who shot the policeman was underage at the time of the crime, so he couldn't be prosecuted for murder. the other man was able to be prosecuted. he was found guilty of murder and despite the fact that he was known to be innocent of the actual shooting, there was the question of whether he knew that the younger man was carrying a gun. he was sentenced to death and hung. the reason was probably because his friend killed a policeman. this caused a great outcry at the time and for many years. the man has since been given a posthoumus pardon. the story was made into a film in recent years called "let him have it"
This case sounds different as the person wasn't going out to commit a crime in the first place. is there a website where you can see the info & sign a petition.
can't we as nation states players get such a petition together and storm the white house and the texan governors house with emails to stop this injustice ?
Kenneret, just check out Neo Art's comments above. It's a shocking abomination, yes - and it's the law. So, no, Bush or anyone else is certainly not going to step in.

I remember watching an episode of, of all things, "Judging Amy" on TV a couple years ago and they had a case like that, where a jury convicted a kid of murder because he and his friend had robbed a grocery store and the friend, who was the one with the gun, shot the owner.
The law in question was never explained in the show, the whole logic behind it was just assumed to be a given, and I remember being incredibly irritated at that storyline because, please, how stupidly fucked up an idea did the writers come up with there? They expected us to believe that?
I only learned a few months later that it actually wasn't some made-up improbable crap cooked up in the brains of TV script writers but actual US law.

It hasn't stopped boggling my mind since.

There still remains that question as to how this rule applies to him at all. Was he a party to some other criminal activity? If so, what?Yes. Two robberies, earlier in the day.

Yes. Two robberies, earlier in the day.

So the murder did not occur in the commission of another crime, unless they were still returning from those robberies, or proceeding toward some further crime. That a person was, at some earlier time, an associate in a crime committed by a murderer does not make them party to the murder. There still has to be something more going on here.

So the murder did not occur in the commission of another crime, unless they were still returning from those robberies, or proceeding toward some further crime. That a person was, at some earlier time, an associate in a crime committed by a murderer does not make them party to the murder. There still has to be something more going on here.The prosecution argued that he "should have inferred" that his friend was going to rob someone when he jumped out of the car. But the other "accomplices" have all testified that the killer's actions took them completely by surprise. They only realized what happened when they heard the shot.

So the murder did not occur in the commission of another crime, unless they were still returning from those robberies, or proceeding toward some further crime. That a person was, at some earlier time, an associate in a crime committed by a murderer does not make them party to the murder. There still has to be something more going on here.

No, there isn't. Any country with death penalty is barbaric enough to pull this kind of crap.

Now now, we're not ALL assholes.Then save this man.

The prosecution argued that he "should have inferred" that his friend was going to rob someone when he jumped out of the car. But the other "accomplices" have all testified that the killer's actions took them completely by surprise. They only realized what happened when they heard the shot.

OK. That's completely F**ked up

Any country with death penalty is barbaric enough to pull this kind of crap.qft.

god bless america. :upyours:

Kenneret, just check out Neo Art's comments above. It's a shocking abomination, yes - and it's the law. So, no, Bush or anyone else is certainly not going to step in.

Bush can not step in. Now it's true, Bush can commute or pardon anybody he wishes, regardless of the actual obvious guilt of that person (see Scooter Libby).

For a Federal crime. But only a Federal crime. He has absolutly no authority, none what so ever, to commute the conviction of someone for a state crime.

The governor of Texas could, theoretically do that.

Now, let me state something clearly. I don't believe in the death penalty, so obviously I think this punishment is wrong. I think the death penalty is ALWAYS wrong.

With that being said, he was the getaway driver in a murder. He knowingly aided and abetted a murderer flee the scene. This makes him directly complicit in the murder of that man, and that makes him, in my mind, if not a murderer, than at very least certainly a criminal.

He helped a murderer try to get away, that deserves punishment of some sort.

And yes yes, I know, the other passengers in the car said he didn't know. But do you know what else I know? I know a man doesn't get convicted unless the jury believes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he's guilty.

So yeah, I know his buddies said he didn't do it. But I know something else too. I know that the jury did not believe them.

I have no idea what the prosecution submitted as evidence, and frankly neither does anyone else. What I do know is that while I get that despite whatever it is his friends say, the prosecution did provide sufficient evidence to prove to the jury that yes, he did know his buddy just murdered someone, and yes, he did know that he was helping him escape.

Now again, i don't like the death penalty, and I don't agree with its application in this or any other case. But I am not nearly arrogant enough to suggest that I, having not been at the trial, having not seen the evidence, having heard nothing more than one brief news article, am capable of second guessing the jury.

Yes. Two robberies, earlier in the day.

ah, so that makes it better. So he and his buddies were involved in two robberies that day, and yet when the guy jumped out of the car for the third time he magically never figured that he was going to rob a third guy?

Please.

the jury did not believe them.the main problem of the US justice system is that guilt is not determined by experts but by some dorks off the street who don't give a shit for a man's fate.

ah, so that makes it better. So he and his buddies were involved in two robberies that day, and yet when the guy jumped out of the car for the third time he magically never figured that he was going to rob a third guy?

Please.The first two robberies were planned and executed together. They didn't jump out of the car attacking people who had stopped in front of them, they wandered around parking lots threatening random people.

Of the four of them, ONLY the killer possessed a weapon. Whatever else they had done that day, no one else helped him to plan or execute THIS robbery--the one that resulted in someone's death.

the main problem of the US justice system is that guilt is not determined by experts but by some dorks off the street who don't give a shit for a man's fate.Actually, sometimes that's the BEST thing about the U.S. justice system.

Jury nullification is the most democratic institution we have, and it has played an important role in legal history... as when Northern juries routinely nullified fugitive slave laws.

the main problem of the US justice system is that guilt is not determined by experts but by some dorks off the street who don't give a shit for a man's fate.

an expert on what, exactly? The law is that if he knew that he was involved in a crime where someone died than he is guilty of murder.

How does it take an expert to understand that?

The first two robberies were planned and executed together. They didn't jump out of the car attacking people who had stopped in front of them, they wandered around parking lots threatening random people.

Of the four of them, ONLY the killer possessed a weapon. Whatever else they had done that day, no one else helped him to plan or execute THIS robbery--the one that resulted in someone's death.

So the driver of the car, driving around his buddy who had a weapon, had NO idea what was going on when said buddy, who he knew had a weapon, who had already robbed two people that day, got out of the car, alone, and confronted someone?

So the driver of that car had no idea that said buddy with a weapon just murdered someone when he drove off with said buddy in the car? A buddy that just fired a gun less than 100 feet away?

Again, please.

So the driver of the car, driving around his buddy who had a weapon, had NO idea what was going on when said buddy, who he knew had a weapon, who had already robbed two people that day, got out of the car, alone, and confronted someone?

So the driver of that car had no idea that said buddy with a weapon just murdered someone when he drove off with said buddy in the car?

Again, please.I believe the standard is "reasonable doubt."

(That means that a sarcastic "please" is not a sufficient proof of what he "must" have known or inferred.)

I believe the standard is "reasonable doubt."

(That means that a sarcastic "please" is not a sufficient proof of what he "must" have known or inferred.)

Yeah, your right, the standard is reasonable doubt. And a sarcastic "please" is perfectly sufficient.

Why? Because the alternative is to believe that he had no idea that his armed buddy, who just committed two robberies already, who jumped out of the car, was not engaging in another robbery.

Because the alternative is to believe that he had no idea what his buddy just did, had no idea that he just shot someone, and did not hear the gun going off 80 feet away. You're right of course, sarcasm is not at all sufficient.

But common sense is. And common sense tells me that when a gun goes off 80 feet from your face, you fucking know about it. Common sense tells me that if someone says they didn't know a gun went off 80 feet from their face, it's reasonable to believe that they're lying.

So yeah, I find that alternative pretty fucking unreasonable.

an expert on what, exactly? The law is that if he knew that he was involved in a crime where someone died than he is guilty of murder.

How does it take an expert to understand that?they convicted a man for a murder that someone else committed. that seems reasonable to you?

Why? Because the alternative is to believe that he had no idea that his armed buddy, who just committed two robberies already, who jumped out of the car, was not engaging in another robbery.Why is that so unreasonable?

They had planned robberies together. They had discussed how they should be done. They were all in on every previous robbery, each of which demonstrated a very, very different mode of attack than this one.

For one thing, he jumped out of the car and approached a group of people, while previously they had threatened individuals. He also didn't say anything to them when he jumped out.

If I were committing robberies with my friend, I would expect him to tell me if he planned to do another. I would expect him to say, "Get ready to run" or something. I also wouldn't particularly expect him to suddenly change our mode of attack all by himself.

I might have thought he knew one of the people. They were all local. I might have thought he had to take a piss. I might have thought a lot of things.

Information on this (http://www.todesstrafe-usa.de/foster/english/fed_writ2.htm)

" INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
WHY RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED BY THIS COURT

Mauriceo Brown shot and killed Michael LaHood in the driveway of his residence, while Kenneth Foster, Dwayne Dillard and Julius Steen remained in the car. They were promptly caught and gave written confessions. Brown and Foster were jointly tried and sentenced to death. Steen was the prosecution’s star witness, and as part of a plea agreement, pled guilty, but to this day has not been sentenced. Dillard was indicted for capital murder and never testified at trial. After Brown and Foster were sentenced to death, the indictment against Dillard was dismissed. All four of these individuals gave the same account regarding Kenneth Foster’s alleged liability for Brown’s murder of LaHood: Brown acted on his own independent impulse, no robbery was contemplated by Foster, and Foster did not anticipate and could not have anticipated Brown’s action. Thus, there is not only a lack of evidence to support the theory of Kenneth Foster’s liability for capital murder, everyone with any knowledge about the events of the evening of Michael LaHood’s death exonerates Kenneth Foster. <snip> .... "

Why is that so unreasonable?

They had planned robberies together. They had discussed how they should be done. They were all in on every previous robbery, each of which demonstrated a very, very different mode of attack than this one.

For one thing, he jumped out of the car and approached a group of people, while previously they had threatened individuals. He also didn't say anything to them when he jumped out.

If I were committing robberies with my friend, I would expect him to tell me if he planned to do another. I would expect him to say, "Get ready to run" or something. I also wouldn't particularly expect him to suddenly change our mode of attack all by himself.

I might have thought he knew one of the people. They were all local. I might have thought he had to take a piss. I might have thought a lot of things.

It helps that the other passengers testify consistently that they didn't know. And if I'm not mistaken, they didn't have to lie to save their own asses... because only the driver was charged.

So when the only witnesses to what went on in the car say there was no discussion, and they didn't realize what was happening until it was over... I call that reasonable doubt.

Call it what you want. I call it the other way. Frankly, when his friend, that he knew was armed, that he knew had committed robberies already that day, jumped out of the car and approached a group of individuals, he, with all reasonable possibility, knew what was going to happen.

And when that gun went off less than 100 feet away, it is my opinion that in all reasonable possibility, he knew what happened.

And when his buddy got in the car after firing a gun less than 100 feet away, it is my opinion that, in all reasonable possibility, he knew he was helping a killer escape.

Now again, you are free to hold a different opinion than I, and guilt proven beyond all reasonable doubt is, of course, a matter of opinion. But as I said, I am not nearly arrogant enough to presume, having not read a transcript, observed the evidence, or attended the trial, that I can properly second guess the jury.

they convicted a man for a murder that someone else committed. that seems reasonable to you?

considering it was demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the getaway driver knew what was happening?

Yup, it indeed does seem perfectly reasonable.

Information on this (http://www.todesstrafe-usa.de/foster/english/fed_writ2.htm)

" INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
WHY RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED BY THIS COURT

Mauriceo Brown shot and killed Michael LaHood in the driveway of his residence, while Kenneth Foster, Dwayne Dillard and Julius Steen remained in the car. They were promptly caught and gave written confessions. Brown and Foster were jointly tried and sentenced to death. Steen was the prosecution’s star witness, and as part of a plea agreement, pled guilty, but to this day has not been sentenced. Dillard was indicted for capital murder and never testified at trial. After Brown and Foster were sentenced to death, the indictment against Dillard was dismissed. All four of these individuals gave the same account regarding Kenneth Foster’s alleged liability for Brown’s murder of LaHood: Brown acted on his own independent impulse, no robbery was contemplated by Foster, and Foster did not anticipate and could not have anticipated Brown’s action. Thus, there is not only a lack of evidence to support the theory of Kenneth Foster’s liability for capital murder, everyone with any knowledge about the events of the evening of Michael LaHood’s death exonerates Kenneth Foster. <snip> .... "

if brown and foster were tried together, id suggest that the problem wasnt his innocence but his incompetent lawyer.

they dont commute many sentences in texas. i doubt that this will be one of the few.

so while we're in the process of re-trying this man again here... I would like to point this out.

the main problem of the US justice system is that guilt is not determined by experts but by some dorks off the street who don't give a shit for a man's fate.

actually, I would rather than than a panel of experts who say "that given x situation, if I was guilt free, I would respond with Y, but since I did not, but instead took action Z, I am guilty."

so while we're in the process of re-trying this man again here... I would like to point this out.



actually, I would rather than than a panel of experts who say "that given x situation, if I was guilt free, I would respond with Y, but since I did not, but instead took action Z, I am guilty."

you'd be amazed at how some of the hearsay exceptions are basically exactly that. I could give you a case that REALLY ticks me off on that subject if you want...

considering it was demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the getaway driver knew what was happening?

Yup, it indeed does seem perfectly reasonable.It was not so demonstrated. And your reason is shit.

Read the text linked by Naturality.

you'd be amazed at how some of the hearsay exceptions are basically exactly that. I could give you a case that REALLY ticks me off on that subject if you want...

Not necessary. but it's more reason why a jury of peers works.

of course it's not infallable, but it's better than nothing.

Frankly, when his friend, that he knew was armed, that he knew had committed robberies already that day, jumped out of the car and approached a group of individuals, he, with all reasonable possibility, knew what was going to happen.There's a difference between believing that, and believing that there is no reasonable doubt.

And when that gun went off less than 100 feet away, it is my opinion that in all reasonable possibility, he knew what happened.He may have. In which case, he would be guilty of aiding his friend... but that is very different from being an accomplice to a crime he did not plan, and did not know had happened until after the fact.

You can't be an accomplice after the fact. And even in Texas they don't have the death penalty for people who aid a fugitive or obstruct justice.

if brown and foster were tried together, id suggest that the problem wasnt his innocence but his incompetent lawyer.

they dont commute many sentences in texas. i doubt that this will be one of the few.

Sucks royally.

not sure if anyone, besides you, read anything on that page, so just going to post a bit more of it.

...snip " After having committed two robberies, Foster was driving to Dillard’s house through a residential area in order to avoid being spotted by police. (E.H. Vol. 2, 1/16/01, p. 28) Dillard testified that Foster had told him that he wanted Brown and Steen to stop committing the robberies. (E.H. Vol 2, 1/16/01, p. 26). “He told me that he wanted to stop and he felt like if he told me that I would tell them and that they would listen to me.” (E.H. Vol 2, 1/16/01, p. 26). Foster had earlier asked Dillard to persuade Brown and Steen to stop robbing. (E.H. Vol. 2, 1/16/01, p. 68). Foster said he wanted Dillard to tell Brown and Steen because they would listen to him. (E.H. Vol 2, 1/16/01, p. 68). Dillard had known Brown and Steen longer than Foster. (E.H. Vol 2, 1/16/01, p. 68). Foster expressed concerns about his grandfather and said he needed to get the car (which belonged to his grandfather) back by a certain time. (E.H. Vol. 2, 1/16/01, p. 69).

Dillard testified that after Brown and Steen had committed two robberies, he believed there would be no more robberies because he took his gun back. (E.H. Vol. 2, 1/16/01, p. 27). For the two robberies, Dillard gave the gun once to Steen and once to Brown, and they gave it back, so Dillard understood the robberies were over. Id. While driving home, they saw a scantily-clad woman who appeared to be waving them down in front of a residence. Brown wanted to stop to talk to her and get her phone number. There was no discussion about committing a robbery. (Vol. XVII, pp. 367-368; 413).

Dillard testified that Steen directed Foster to stop the car because the woman was waving her arms in the air as if to flag them down for assistance. (E.H. Vol. 2, 1/16/01, p. 29). On Steen’s instructions, Foster put the car in reverse and backed up. (E.H. Vol. 2, 1/16/01, p. 30-31). Dillard testified that when the car stopped, Dillard had the gun. (E.H. Vol. 2, 1/16/01, p. 31). Dillard told Foster, “let’s go.” As Foster began to pull away from the curb, Brown got out of the car and grabbed the gun which was sitting on Dillard’s left side. (E.H. Vol. 2, 1/16/01, p. 31).

Dillard testified that Brown did not ask him for the gun, he did not expect Brown to take his gun, and he had not given Brown permission to take the gun. (E.H. Vol 2, 1/16/01, pp. 32; 69). Dillard testified that Foster could not have seen Brown snatch Dillard’s gun because it was dark, Foster was driving the car, and Brown and Dillard were in the back seat. (E.H. Vol 2, 1/16/01, p. 70). " ... snip

It was not so demonstrated.

The jury believed it did. i am not going ot second guess the jury based on a few links.

Read the text linked by Naturality.

I did. And I'm sure the jury heard that too. It doesn't mean they had to believe them.

And your reason is shit.

my reasoning is shit? You're the one who is presuming that the mere fact that the passengers said he didn't know is reasonable doubt. Seriously, if all it took to avoid conviction was the accused to get on the stand and go "nuh uh" and for jackasses like you to yell screaming "he said he didn't know that's reasonable doubt!" then the criminal justice system would grind to a halt. And you call MY reasoning shit.

yes, they said they didn't know. But a jury is of course free, in the face of contrary evidence, to not believe them.

But don't worry, if you don't like the fact that this man is going to die, just pretend he's jewish. That should put a smile on your face.

It was not so demonstrated. And your reason is shit.

Read the text linked by Naturality.

you know... reading that linked text... I don't believe the fault was with the jury.

but Foster's defense lawyer. even if only Half of that is true, I would seriously investigate the competence of Foster's Defense Lawyer.

add to that the fact that Foster's Lawyer should've cut a deal like the other two... I seriously question his Def att. competence.

You're the one who is presuming that the mere fact that the passengers said he didn't know is reasonable doubt.It's that, together with the fact that this was NOT their M.O. that makes it reasonable doubt for me.

If they had been driving around all afternoon hopping out of the car to attack people, then there would be no question that he should have known what was going on, even if he didn't plan this attack.

But no one disputes that the method of their earlier robberies had been completely different: it had been coordinated (all of them at once, not just one), and it had been walking around parking lots, not jumping out of cars.

When someone does something unexpected, it is reasonable to believe that the people with him might not expect the outcome.

You can't be an accomplice after the fact. And even in Texas they don't have the death penalty for people who aid a fugitive or obstruct justice.

Quite true. however if you'll look back you'll already note that I said I did not support the death penalty, in ANY circumstances. So logically I do not accept it in this one.

So since we have already established I am not in support of the death penalty in this instance, I have nothing further to contribute to that specific conversation, and instead turned to a general discussion as to whether he is guilty of some criminal act in general.

In my opinion he is almost certainly guilty of aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice. Whether he was also guilty of aiding in the commission of the robbery is another issue. One I can't really and properly weigh in on since I was not in attendance at the trial.

I can however say that I can imagine circumstances and evidence that upon presentation a jury could have found him guilty, his friends' testimony not withstanding.

Whether this verdict was in fact proper I do not know, I wasn't there. But I will give proper defference to the jury, and not second guess their judgement, having not been there at the trial.

add to that the fact that Foster's Lawyer should've cut a deal like the other two... I seriously question his Def att. competence.

I will say one thing in defense of my profession. A lawyer can't do anything without his client's permission.

How do you know that Foster was willing to take a deal?

Sucks royally.

not sure if anyone, besides you, read anything on that page, so just going to post a bit more of it.



after having read through the rest of the circumstances and the jury instructions i dont think he would have been convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death if

1) he hadnt been in texas

2) he hadnt been tried with the actual killer

or

3) he'd had a better lawyer

It's that, together with the fact that this was NOT their M.O. that makes it reasonable doubt for me.

If they had been driving around all afternoon hopping out of the car to attack people, then there would be no question that he should have known what was going on, even if he didn't plan this attack.

But no one disputes that the method of their earlier robberies had been completely different: it had been coordinated (all of them at once, not just one), and it had been walking around parking lots, not jumping out of cars.

When someone does something unexpected, it is reasonable to believe that the people with him might not expect the outcome.

And again, I can't say one way or the other. i was not there, I didn't hear all the testimony or see all the evidence. I can say only that I can imagine certain reasonable circumstances in which the jury could have found him guilty. And given that I don't know the full entirety of the testimony and evidence, I'm not going to second guess the jury on the matter of whether or not he knew. I simply do not have sufficient information, I was not at the trial.

So since we have already established I am not in support of the death penalty in this instance, I have nothing further to contribute to that specific conversation, and instead turned to a general discussion as to whether he is guilty of some criminal act in general.Yeah, I'll agree to aiding and abetting on top of his earlier robberies.

Whether he was also guilty of aiding in the commission of the robbery is another issue.I'll still go with "quite possibly, but with reasonable doubt to the contrary" on that one. And whether you agree with capital punishment or not, that's the one that matters for the purposes of this sentence.

But I will give proper deference to the jury, and not second-guess their judgment, having not been there at the trial.Oh, please.

This is what people say when they agree with the jury, then they turn around to criticize some other conviction. I have never met anyone who consistently holds to deference to the jury, and I sincerely doubt you are the exception.

Some have suggested he must have had a really bad lawyer. I don't think that follows. It may have been that a biased judge refused to give proper instructions to the jury as to a) standards of evidence; or b) the definition of "accomplice."

And again, I can't say one way or the other. i was not there, I didn't hear all the testimony or see all the evidence. I can say only that I can imagine certain reasonable circumstances in which the jury could have found him guilty. And given that I don't know the full entirety of the testimony and evidence, I'm not going to second guess the jury on the matter of whether or not he knew. I simply do not have sufficient information, I was not at the trial.

what more evidence do you need??? HE DID NOT KILL. that's all you need to know.
they are making him responsible for someone else's deed. is that your understanding of proper justice?

Oh, please.

This is what people say when they agree with the jury, then they turn around to criticize some other conviction. I have never met anyone who consistently holds to deference to the jury, and I sincerely doubt you are the exception.

You are correct for the vast majority of people. Your average person doesn't subscribe to such a philosophy. That being said, deference to the jury is one of the fundamental underpinnings of our american judicial system.

I am a lawyer. I am a member of our american judicial system. While most people may not believe in proper deference to the jury, it is one of the guiding mantras of my job. It is one of the principles upon which the profession that feeds me is built upon.

Perhaps it is too much indoctrination in law school, but I can not help but subscribe to a principle without which the entire foundation upon which I have built my career will collapse.

Some have suggested he must have had a really bad lawyer. I don't think that follows. It may have been that a biased judge refused to give proper instructions to the jury as to a) standards of evidence; or b) the definition of "accomplice."

Again, perhaps. I'd have to see the instruction. Again, without having seen the instruction, I will side with the jury. Can't help it, 'tis part of the job you see.

Some have suggested he must have had a really bad lawyer. I don't think that follows. It may have been that a biased judge refused to give proper instructions to the jury as to a) standards of evidence; or b) the definition of "accomplice."

That is some assumption you are making there. You prefer questioning the integrity of a judge to questioning the competence of legal representation.

OK, if you want to, but I see no great reason, nor small reason for that matter, to prefer that line.

I will say one thing in defense of my profession. A lawyer can't do anything without his client's permission.

How do you know that Foster was willing to take a deal?

The lawyer should've at least informed Foster of the possiblity of the death penalty. If Foster DID refuse the deal, then it's Foster's fault for his predicament. but being that the jury answers yes to this question...
Do you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Kenneth Foster actually caused deceased’s death, or that he intended to kill the deceased or another, or that he anticipated that a human life would be taken?
even after testimony that no one in that car knew Brown was going to kill anyone, that doesn't look good for the lawyer's skills.

if Foster was offered a deal, why didn't he take it? loyalty? commendable, but again it would point to Foster's permitting the chance of the DP.

especially after the other two testify against Brown, Foster should've copped a plea somehow.

and yes, while I do not-like lawyers, I know that there are Good ones out there and ones that really bring the profession down.

Some have suggested he must have had a really bad lawyer. I don't think that follows. It may have been that a biased judge refused to give proper instructions to the jury as to a) standards of evidence; or b) the definition of "accomplice."
while that may be possible, isn't there checks and procedures that lawyers can initiate to see if the judge was biased?

I am a lawyer. I am a member of our american judicial system. While most people may not believe in proper deference to the jury, it is one of the guiding mantras of my job. It is one of the principles upon which the profession that feeds me is built upon.So does that mean you NEVER see a conviction and think, "automatic appeal"?

while that may be possible, isn't there checks and procedures that lawyers can initiate to see if the judge was biased?Yeah... but in Texas, good luck finding one who isn't drooling about having someone executed.

Must be something in the water.

while that may be possible, isn't there checks and procedures that lawyers can initiate to see if the judge was biased?not if the convicted is black

So does that mean you NEVER see a conviction and think, "automatic appeal"?

IF I have real specific reasons to believe so, sure I do. If I see a jury instruction that I think is wrong, if I see evidence that may have been handled unconstitutionally, sure.

If I see something wrong with the way the jury was instructed or the case presented, absolutly.

But then again, that's really the only reasons you CAN win an appeal. An appeals court will overturn if there's an instruction problem, or an evidence problem, or a constitutional problem, sure. But I have no evidence to believe any of that happened here.

But the odds of an appeals court overturning a verdict for no other reason than the fact that they disagree with the jury? It's like getting hit by lightning. It never happens. For an appeals court to overturn a jury verdict rendered by a properly instructed jury, at the end of a properly executed trial, the court has to not just disagree with the jury, it has to believe that there was no way a jury should have been able to have found what they did. Not just disagreement, but that the jury was just absolutly 100% wrong and should never have found what they did.

Verdict nullification by an appeals court without a procedural reason to do so is....again, it's like getting hit by lightning.

Now sure, show me something that the prosecution did wrong here. Show me some problem, and I will certainly agree that the verdict should be overturned. But incomplete information is not enough to convince me that the jury was absolutly wrong.

Information on this (http://www.todesstrafe-usa.de/foster/english/fed_writ2.htm)

" INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
WHY RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED BY THIS COURT

Mauriceo Brown shot and killed Michael LaHood in the driveway of his residence, while Kenneth Foster, Dwayne Dillard and Julius Steen remained in the car. They were promptly caught and gave written confessions. Brown and Foster were jointly tried and sentenced to death. Steen was the prosecution’s star witness, and as part of a plea agreement, pled guilty, but to this day has not been sentenced. Dillard was indicted for capital murder and never testified at trial. After Brown and Foster were sentenced to death, the indictment against Dillard was dismissed. All four of these individuals gave the same account regarding Kenneth Foster’s alleged liability for Brown’s murder of LaHood: Brown acted on his own independent impulse, no robbery was contemplated by Foster, and Foster did not anticipate and could not have anticipated Brown’s action. Thus, there is not only a lack of evidence to support the theory of Kenneth Foster’s liability for capital murder, everyone with any knowledge about the events of the evening of Michael LaHood’s death exonerates Kenneth Foster. <snip> .... "

So...let's get this straight...For not-committing exactly the same crime another person gets to go free while the other one is quite literally fried? :eek:

There's a reason why I despise plea bargains and why I'm glad they're not available here: Finding out the Truth and maintaining equality of justice are seriously compromised by tactical pleas.

Yeah... but in Texas, good luck finding one who isn't drooling about having someone executed.

Must be something in the water.

not if the convicted is black love the generalization here. :rolleyes: ;) :p

So...let's get this straight...For exactly the same crime another person gets to go free while the other one is quite literally fried? :eek:

There's a reason why I despise plea bargains and why I'm glad they're not available here: Finding out the Truth and maintaining equality of justice are seriously compromised by tactical pleas. yep. And as a 'star witness' he may get a very light sentence (if at all) since he did help convict one killer.

I would rather grant clemency for one if that one helps puts another, more violent criminal away.

IF I have real specific reasons to believe so, sure I do.Yes, that's all well and good if you're the lawyer in the case.

But the general citizenry still has a role in democracy in deciding what justice is all about. And I see no reason, including your professional ethics, to refuse to comment when a case appears, on the evidence available, to have been decided in a way that conflicts with our morals.

That's the whole point of the jury system, and the point of jury nullification, to which I alluded earlier: society, at the most democratic level of ordinary citizens, gets the last word.

While deference to the jury is a valid legal principle, at some point I think blind deference becomes quite stupid, as it does not allow us to have a healthy discussion about the kinds of cases we think should and should not result in convictions.

But then again, that's really the only reasons you CAN win an appeal. An appeals court will overturn if there's an instruction problem, or an evidence problem, or a constitutional problem, sure.I'm well aware. I teach law.

But I have no evidence to believe any of that happened here.No, you have no positive evidence.

What you do have is a jury decision that flies in the face of reason, based on the evidence we have.

I'm perfectly willing to say that if new evidence were introduced to our discussion, I might reconsider my view. But the whole point of such discussions is to decide what, as rational people, we believe the law should be. And that means sometimes reaching tentative conclusions based on the evidence we have.

But the odds of an appeals court overturning a verdict for no other reason than the fact that they disagree with the jury? It's like getting hit by lightning.

I know. What I am arguing is this:

1) Assume that the jury was not simply biased or corrupt. This is what deference to the jury means to me. Assume that whatever instructions they were given, they followed them.
2) Now, based on the evidence available, is it likely that a properly instructed jury with the evidence before us would have ruled as they did?

I think not. And I think if they did, we need to start changing the underlying social ideas that would lead them to such a conclusion.

For an appeals court to overturn a jury verdict rendered by a properly instructed jury, at the end of a properly executed trial, the court has to not just disagree with the jury, it has to believe that there was no way a jury should have been able to have found what they did.

And I'm not saying that. But I am saying it's quite a stretch, and it's something we should talk about in those terms.

Is it possible that twelve people looked at the evidence we are looking at now and thought, "no reasonable doubt"? Yes. But it is my contention that the probability that this happened should seem to be inversely related to the quality of the instructions given to them and/or to the quality of the defense attorney.

As you know, it is almost impossible to win an appeal on the grounds that your attorney was a moron.

But it sure as hell looks like something went amiss in this case.

But incomplete information is not enough to convince me that the jury was absolutly wrong.I'm not looking for that.

I'm looking for an admission that, based on what we've seen, we would be right to suspect that there was some procedural error.

Then save this man.

Give me a plane ticket to Texas and funds to purchase heavy weapons and armor when I get there. I lack the funding to do so myself and at this point see no way to save him short of a jail break.

IF I have real specific reasons to believe so, sure I do. If I see a jury instruction that I think is wrong, if I see evidence that may have been handled unconstitutionally, sure.

If I see something wrong with the way the jury was instructed or the case presented, absolutly.

But then again, that's really the only reasons you CAN win an appeal. An appeals court will overturn if there's an instruction problem, or an evidence problem, or a constitutional problem, sure. But I have no evidence to believe any of that happened here.

But the odds of an appeals court overturning a verdict for no other reason than the fact that they disagree with the jury? It's like getting hit by lightning. It never happens. For an appeals court to overturn a jury verdict rendered by a properly instructed jury, at the end of a properly executed trial, the court has to not just disagree with the jury, it has to believe that there was no way a jury should have been able to have found what they did. Not just disagreement, but that the jury was just absolutly 100% wrong and should never have found what they did.

Verdict nullification by an appeals court without a procedural reason to do so is....again, it's like getting hit by lightning.

Now sure, show me something that the prosecution did wrong here. Show me some problem, and I will certainly agree that the verdict should be overturned. But incomplete information is not enough to convince me that the jury was absolutly wrong.

They should change the law then, to make sure that a court never has the power to sentence someone to death based on such shaky evidence and uncertainty. If so much power is placed on the fallible opinion of the jury, ideally it should never be given the power to sentence someone to death anyway.

I'm sorry, it's just completely asinine to say, "I refuse to discuss this case, the jury has already decided."

Again, as a legal principle deference is important, especially in acquittals: if the jury says "not guilty," then we should in every way treat a person as not guilty.

Likewise we shouldn't just start throwing cases out because the jury makes what appears to be a bad decision to observers, including legal observers.

But it is public discussion of the sense of case law that makes jury trials realistic in the first place. The public needs to develop opinions on these things, and it does not help to hide behind "deference" to the jury, however professional it may be.

I'm sorry, it's just completely asinine to say, "I refuse to discuss this case, the jury has already decided."


Oh please, stop being so damned pedantic. I haven't "refused to discuss this case", in fact I've discussed it for five damned pages now.

What I have said, what I have continued to say is that having NOT been at the trial, having NOT heard the entirety of the testimony, having NOT seen the evidence, any opinion I form is entirely an incomplete one. And what good is shouting to the heavens about the horrible injustice of this man's conviction when that opinion is an uninformed one?

We can sit here and discuss it all we want about whether there is reasonable doubt or not. You seemed to have made up your mind, despite not being there at the trial, despite not having a full transcript, despite not having seen the evidence, that there is reasonable doubt and the jury was wrong.

I on the other hand refuse to do so, and merely state that those people who HAVE seen the entirety of the evidence, HAVE heard the entirety of the testimony, HAVE been there at the trial rendered their opinion, which contradicts your own opinion and, if forced to pick a group to side with, the 12 unanimous jury members, or your not fully informed self, I will defer to the informed jury, just about every time, unless i see a clear reason not to.

And I don't see one.

Frankly you're free to believe whatever the hell you want, but don't get pissy at me that I recognize my not fully informed position and am more inclined to believe that the 12 jury members are more inclined to get it right over your equally not fully informed self.

What I have said, what I have continued to say is that having NOT been at the trial, having NOT heard the entirety of the testimony, having NOT seen the evidence, any opinion I form is entirely an incomplete one.That's a truism. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be psychic.

And what good is shouting to the heavens about the horrible injustice of this man's conviction when that opinion is an uninformed one?Because, when presented with a case that strongly leads one's opinion, however incomplete, to the position that an injustice may have occurred, shouting to the heavens may just get someone with the power to do something about it to take another look at the case.

It is especially important to shout loudly and persistently when a person is going to die in a matter of weeks if no one does something.

We can sit here and discuss it all we want about whether there is reasonable doubt or not. You seemed to have made up your mind, despite not being there at the trial, despite not having a full transcript, despite not having seen the evidence, that there is reasonable doubt and the jury was wrong.No.

I have made up my mind that the only way this case makes sense is if there's something I'm NOT being told. And if that's true, why am I not being told?

Where are the defenders of this conviction to produce the missing pieces? Surely a transcript must be available somewhere. Surely the supporters of the conviction could have found it by now to show us what we're missing.

Goddamn, why is texas so damn stupid.

Because, when presented with a case that strongly leads one's opinion, however incomplete, to the position that an injustice may have occurred, shouting to the heavens may just get someone with the power to do something about it to take another look at the case.


this is texas.

you (and by you it seems i mean YOU) could teach a class called "travesties of justice" and use the past year's cases every semester.

not THIS past year, every past year.

this is texas.

you (and by you it seems i mean YOU) could teach a class called "travesties of justice" and use the past year's cases every semester.

not THIS past year, every past year.Damn, I would LOVE to see a class on the schedule:

"Travesties of Justice: Contemporary Texas Case Law."

Yet another note for my "when I have tenure" folder. ;)

Damn, I would LOVE to see a class on the schedule:

"Travesties of Justice: Contemporary Texas Case Law."

Yet another note for my "when I have tenure" folder. ;)

yeah

it would so kick ass.

how come we cant do anything about texas? legally i mean.

If you ask me, this is fucked up beyond all recognition. Your thoughts?

EDIT: I guess people don't have many thoughts to contribute.

that's horrendous, i'm utterly appalled.

The first two robberies were planned and executed together. They didn't jump out of the car attacking people who had stopped in front of them, they wandered around parking lots threatening random people.

Yeah death penalty is barbaric....

But barbarian "wandering around parking lots threatening random people" will hardly ever gain any sympathies from me.

Forget the idea of the death penalty altogether and this is still ridiculous.

Yeah... but in Texas, good luck finding one who isn't drooling about having someone executed.

Must be something in the water.

And air.

there is a petition to sign, and a few websites to contact.
even the best friend of the victim is against Foster being murdered by the state of Texas.

there is a petition to sign, and a few websites to contact.
even the best friend of the victim is against Foster being murdered by the state of Texas.

It's a nice idea, but things like that haven't done the West Memphis Three, for instance, any good.

So does that mean you NEVER see a conviction and think, "automatic appeal"?
Last I recall he isn't a criminal attorney, or a Constitutional lawyer, but he likes to assert his opinion is the only correct one because he is some type of attorney whenever matters of any sort of law come up

Yeah... but in Texas, good luck finding one who isn't drooling about having someone executed.

Must be something in the water.
They are trying to prove the sizes of their penis because Texas is smaller than Alaska.

What I have said, what I have continued to say is that having NOT been at the trial, having NOT heard the entirety of the testimony, having NOT seen the evidence, any opinion I form is entirely an incomplete one. And what good is shouting to the heavens about the horrible injustice of this man's conviction when that opinion is an uninformed one?
Let's see. 1990s conviction of a black man for killing a white man in Texas based on a law that makes associating with murderers murder. Yeah, that decision was obviously fair and well thought out.

I generally favor the death penalty - in very limited context - child molestation, serial murder, serial rape - that's it. My biggest objection is that it isn't consistently applied - as in this case. This is plain stupid, the law should have been eliminated ages ago. The judge, who is allowed to make discernments about the law, should be debarred and never allowed near a courtroom again - even as a jury member.

it is, however, unfortunatly, entirely constitutional. There is a well founded principle in american law that says that if you are directly involved in the commission of a violent felony (except manslaughter) that results in the forseeable death of another person, you are guilty of murder. ANd if the legal punishment for murder is death, then anyone involved in the commission of a violent felony that results in the death of another can be sentenced to death.

It is, unfortunatly, entirely legal.

I would question that he had "direct involvement" and that there was any way he could have known that his passenger was going to commit a violent felony.

What it boils down to is that John Q. Public could drop off his significant other at the airport, and that if the significant other kills someone, John Q. Public, with no knowledge of the murder or involvement in it, is slated for death row.

Pretty horrid.

I would question that he had "direct involvement" and that there was any way he could have known that his passenger was going to commit a violent felony.

What it boils down to is that John Q. Public could drop off his significant other at the airport, and that if the significant other kills someone, John Q. Public, with no knowledge of the murder or involvement in it, is slated for death row.

Pretty horrid.
I guess becoming a lawyer strips you of common sense and humanity.

I would question that he had "direct involvement" and that there was any way he could have known that his passenger was going to commit a violent felony.

Well, as I said before, the jury thought he did. I'm not really sure what more I can say on that. I don't know what evidence was presented, I wasn't there at trial, I do not know what the jury used to make their determination. But the jury found he did know.

I am shocked by this. surely President Bush could intervene in such a matter?

Are you kidding? Check out W's record as Governor of Texas regarding state executions.

It's not for no reason the rest of the US refer to Texas' opinion on the death penalty as "He needed killin'."

Let's see. 1990s conviction of a black man for killing a white man in Texas based on a law that makes associating with murderers murder. Yeah, that decision was obviously fair and well thought out.

Ahh so the implication was that it was racist motivation and not based on facts.

Prove it.

Last I recall he isn't a criminal attorney, or a Constitutional lawyer, but he likes to assert his opinion is the only correct one because he is some type of attorney whenever matters of any sort of law come up


That's cute.

Prove a single thing I said is wrong.

Well, as I said before, the jury thought he did. I'm not really sure what more I can say on that. I don't know what evidence was presented, I wasn't there at trial, I do not know what the jury used to make their determination. But the jury found he did know.

Yeah, a black man kills a white man in Texas and a black associate is decided by a jury that he knows about it. Totally unexpected.

Ahh so the implication was that it was racist motivation and not based on facts.

Prove it.
Soon as you prove racism doesn't exist in the South.

Yeah, a black man kills a white man in Texas and a black associate is decided by a jury that he knows about it. Totally unexpected.

again, if you wish to claim that the jury's decision was racially motivated.....prove it.

Soon as you prove racism doesn't exist in the South.

Ahh, so, you can't huh? No more of this bullshit. None of this "oh there's racism in the south" or "oh it MUST have been" or "of course it was!" bullshit.

Do you know how many black people were on that jury? Or latinos? Or Asians? Or women? Or men? Do you know ANYTHING what so fucking ever about the makeup of that jury?

Prove it, or shut the fuck up.

again, if you wish to claim that the jury's decision was racially motivated.....prove it.
Ok.
Black man killed a white man in Texas. Black man who killed no one sentenced to death. Done.

Ahh, so, you can't huh? No more of this bullshit. None of this "oh there's racism in the south" or "oh it MUST have been" or "of course it was!" bullshit.

Do you know how many black people were on that jury? Or latinos? Or Asians? Or women? Or men? Do you know ANYTHING what so fucking ever about the makeup of that jury?
Do you? If not, you're welcome to take your own advice.

Ok.
Black man killed a white man in Texas. Black man who killed no one sentenced to death. Done.

You know, that really doesn't seem to be proof.

You know, that really doesn't seem to be proof.
And where is your proof that there could have been no racial motivation and that he actually knew there was going to be a murder?

Do you? If not, you're welcome to take your own advice.

Of course I don't know. But here's a little bit of difference between me and you.

I didn't claim they were racists. I didn't claim they weren't. I claimed only only that I don't have enough facts to claim anything.

YOU on the other hand, seemed to not abide by that. You, who know barely anything about the law, barely anything about the fact, have no evidence to presume the jury was racially motivated, have no evidence to presume the jury was improperly instructed, have no evidence to presume anything at all, decide you know better.

We can debate this all we want, but the fact is we are both debating from a position of ignorance, and I for one am not nearly arrogant enough to presume to second guess the wisdom of the jury without having a reason to do so, and given that I lack the entirety of the trial transcript, evidence and jury instruction, I can not form a reason to.

You, on the other hand, do seem that arrogant.

One can't prove a negative.

And where is your proof that there could have been no racial motivation and that he actually knew there was going to be a murder?

And yet, this entire time, I've been saying that I lack specific information to make a judgement one way or another.

If he knew, then he's a murderer. If he didn't, then he's innocent of that murder (guilty of a whole lot of other stuff though).

One of us is willing to admit his ignorance and say he can't speak with certainty, given that he lacks the full details of the facts and trial.

One of us is willing to make absolute statements despite his ignorance.

Gee, which one of us is which?

One can't prove a negative.
But one can show that the jury composition leads to racial motivation being an unlikely conclusion.

One of us is willing to make absolute statements despite his ignorance.
I rather come to a possible conclusion based on ignorance of the trial than assert the jury is infallibly correct based on ignorance of logic and historical evidence.

And the moral is, folks: avoid Texas like the plague.

But one can show that the jury composition leads to racial motivation being an unlikely conclusion.

and what was that jury composition? Oh? Don't know?

Well shit, I guess if, as you say, certain jury compositions create an unlikely conclusion of racial motivation, and you have no idea whether or not the jury was configured in such a fashion...you really have no clue then, do you?

and what was that jury composition? Oh? Don't know?
And neither do you.

I rather come to a possible conclusion based on ignorance of the trial than assert the jury is infallibly correct based on ignorance of logic and historical evidence.

Well of course, such a thing would be stupid. Good thing nobody has claimed that huh?

Of course, I COULD ask you for proof that someone did, but given your history of completely and totally failing ot provide any substantiation for your claims...i'm not going to waste my time and presuppose that you don't have any.

But go ahead, surprise me

And neither do you.

Quite right, but then again, I never said they weren't racist.

You make an assumption the jury was racially diverse and had no hints of racism anywhere based on no facts and come to a conclusion. I make an assumption there was a racial bias in the jury based on the nature and location of the crime and come to a conclusion.

Really, now where did I make that assumption?

But which one of us is insulting the other for their equally unproven conclusion.

The only person insulted here is your gradeschool teachers, who have had their ability to teach you how to read called into serious question.

Well of course, such a thing would be stupid. Good thing nobody has claimed that huh?
Except for you.
I am a lawyer. I am a member of our american judicial system. While most people may not believe in proper deference to the jury, it is one of the guiding mantras of my job. It is one of the principles upon which the profession that feeds me is built upon.
Now sure, show me something that the prosecution did wrong here. Show me some problem, and I will certainly agree that the verdict should be overturned. But incomplete information is not enough to convince me that the jury was absolutly wrong.

"The jury couldn't possibly be wrong."

Of course, I COULD ask you for proof that someone did, but given your history of completely and totally failing ot provide any substantiation for your claims...i'm not going to waste my time and presuppose that you don't have any.

You make an assumption the jury was racially diverse and had no hints of racism anywhere based on no facts and come to a conclusion. I make an assumption there was a racial bias in the jury based on the nature and location of the crime and come to a conclusion.

But which one of us is insulting the other for their equally unproven conclusion.


But go ahead, surprise me
You are neither a criminal or constitutional lawyer. Surprise.

Quite right, but then again, I never said they weren't racist.

Really, now where did I make that assumption?
That is your entire argument. At least one of us is consistent. Oh sure, you could argue your position is consistent, but that would mean your conclusion is nonsense.


The only person insulted here is your gradeschool teachers, who have had their ability to teach you how to read called into serious question.
Let's not prove me right or anything.

And the moral is, folks: avoid Texas like the plague.

Yes Ma'm.

You know, it's a good thing there is a fundamental difference between "the jury is infallably correct and can never be wrong" and "it is necessary to give proper deference to the jury".

If there wasn't a difference I'd certainly look like a idiot. Fortunatly though, there is.

One means "the jury can not be wrong. Period, full stop, end of sentence"

The other means "while it is possible that the jury was wrong for some reason, the justice system requires us to believe that the jury was right, unless proven that it is wrong."

Which is what deference means. Not infallability. By all means, if you have proof bring it forward.

But the justice system can not stand if jury verdicts are overturned by the mere fact that we disagree with the jury. There must be demonstrable proven error.

If you can prove there was some error in some way other than your own ignorant opinion about how you would have decided if you were on the jury, then by all means I support overturning this verdict.

But vague allegations of "they might have been racist" or "they might have been improperly instructed" or "they might have been" any fucking number of things is not enough to overturn a jury verdit.

The jury has rendered its verdict. Are they infallible? Of course not. Could they have made a mistake? Of course.

But they are still the jury, and if you wish to overturn a jury verdict the burden is on you to prove that it was in error.

Do I know that they were right? No. Do I know that they were wrong? No. I do not have enough information to decide one way or the other. I can make no specific opinion about the jury. And given that I do not have sufficient information to decide the validity of the verdict one way or the other, I shall do what the justice system requires me to do, defer to the verdict, until such time as the verdict is proven to be improper.

That is your entire argument.

As I have said many times, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong


Let's not prove me right or anything.

Don't worry, I don't think that will happen ANY time soon.

Do I know that they were right? No. Do I know that they were wrong? No. I do not have enough information to decide one way or the other. I can make no specific opinion about the jury. And given that I do not have sufficient information to decide the validity of the verdict one way or the other, I shall do what the justice system requires me to do, defer to the verdict, until such time as the verdict is proven to be improper.
Fine, you come to your conclusion from lack of evidence and I will hold to mine. I say based on the nature of the crime and its location, I will view the jury decision with a high amount of suspicion. If you don't agree with that, too bad. Since your decision is based on "I don't have enough information," you can't say my opinion is wrong because my opinion is based on the information I have.


Go ride your high horse off in to the sunset somewhere and come back when you have a reason to be haughty.

I would question that he had "direct involvement" and that there was any way he could have known that his passenger was going to commit a violent felony.

What it boils down to is that John Q. Public could drop off his significant other at the airport, and that if the significant other kills someone, John Q. Public, with no knowledge of the murder or involvement in it, is slated for death row.

Pretty horrid.

Sorry, Kat, but you are wrong there. It boils down to the John Q Public can go out and commit a crime with Joe P Killer, and then if Joe P Killer happens to kill someone while they are still together after committing that crime then John Q public can be slated for death row.

What is in doubt here for me, is the connection between the murder and the crime. If the murder had occurred during the crime in which John Q Public was involved, then there is a clear case for his being guilty of the murder, but that does not appear to be the situation here.

Fine, you come to your conclusion from lack of evidence and I will hold to mine. I say based on the nature of the crime and its location, I will view the jury decision with a high amount of suspicion. If you don't agree with that, too bad. Since your decision is based on "I don't have enough information," you can't say my opinion is wrong because my opinion is based on the information I have.

You are of course free to have whatever opinion you wish, and of course, given that I do not know one way or the other, can not say yours if factually wrong.

That being said, most people wouldn't freely and publically admit that their opinion is one based on ignorance, but, hey, do what you want.

Go ride your high horse off in to the sunset somewhere and come back when you have a reason to be haughty.

Well, considering you've now backed down from your ludicrus contention of "you believe the jury is always right!" and stopped your nonsensical speaking in absolutes, and now are willing to say you are basing your opinion on incomplete information...it would appear I was right the entire time.

So me and my horse are staying right here, k?

Sorry, Kat, but you are wrong there. It boils down to the John Q Public can go out and commit a crime with Joe P Killer, and then if Joe P Killer happens to kill someone while they are still together after committing that crime then John Q public can be slated for death row.

Well yeah that's felony murder rule.

What is in doubt here for me, is the connection between the murder and the crime. If the murder had occurred during the crime in which John Q Public was involved, then there is a clear case for his being guilty of the murder, but that does not appear to be the situation here.

That, of course, does seem to be the matter of contention here, whether or not he was involved in it.

You are of course free to have whatever opinion you wish, and of course, given that I do not know one way or the other, can not say yours if factually wrong.

That being said, most people wouldn't freely and publically admit that their opinion is one based on ignorance, but, hey, do what you want.
My opinion actually has a basis other than "meh, I dunno what happened so I will agree with the jury." Excuse me if the nature of the case leads me to be far more pessimistic.

You know what I find a bit telling? I've seen a few sites about this so far. Not one, NOT ONE mentions a THING about jury composition. You would think that if a jury was composed in such a way as to raise the spectre of racism, all the activist sites trying to get him off death row would be all over it.

But nothing. Not a word.

You know what I find a bit telling? I've seen a few sites about this so far. Not one, NOT ONE mentions a THING about jury composition. You would think that if a jury was composed in such a way as to raise the spectre of racism, all the activist sites trying to get him off death row would be all over it.

But nothing. Not a word.
And we continue with discrediting me on the basis of not liking me. You can continue with talking to yourself then.

My opinion actually has a basis other than "meh, I dunno what happened so I will agree with the jury." Excuse me if the nature of the case leads me to be far more pessimistic.

Be as pessimistic as you wish. One of us subscribes to the fundamental principle of our jury system.

The other does not.

And we continue with discrediting me on the basis of not liking me. You can continue with talking to yourself then.

No, I continue with discrediting you because you make unsubstantiated claims without a shred of proof then when challenged to back it up, totally fail to do so, have a whiney little fit then try to challenge your opponent to prove your unsubstantiated undocumented claim wrong.

You know, the kind of thing you did here, making claims without proof, challenging others to disprove your unproven claims, then acting like a petulant child when they attempt to do so.

The fact that I don't like you merely makes that process all the more fun.

I've never had so much fun reading posts this argumentative in nature, keep up the good work.

They should change the law then, to make sure that a court never has the power to sentence someone to death based on such shaky evidence and uncertainty. If so much power is placed on the fallible opinion of the jury, ideally it should never be given the power to sentence someone to death anyway.

Can someone address this post? Or is there unanimous agreement?

Can someone address this post? Or is there unanimous agreement?No, we've just given up on the US and its incoherent justice system. The man's dead meat and folks like Neo Art seem to delight on it. God bless America.

Yay, bring race into it. Obviously its always a factor.

Prove he had no knowledge.

Need I remind you that it is impossible to prove a negative, that others testified on this part, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt?