Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 255 posts

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#91

Post by couchand »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #25
couchand wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A judge can and should seek confirmation from additional experts, and if some then reasonably cast doubt on the certainty of others' testimony, that ought to be considered.

It's not really a judge's role to go out and find witnesses. Defendants can, but as the article describes, "shaken baby syndrome" was official guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics at the time.

Right, if one party puts forward an unchallenged expert witness, sure, there's not much a judge can do. It sounds like the original case was like that.

It sounds like the appeal is NOT like that, the judge having seemingly ignored the very reasonable challenge to the original witness testimony.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#92

Post by Scarblac »

dsego wrote: post #84
spamizbad wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the purpose of the death penalty is to function as a sort of secular human sacrifice, to ward off evil-doers possibly doing bad things, due to a belief that deep down bad guys are rational actors and will choose not to do commit capital murder based on punishment.

It's retributive justice, it's not a deterrent. To quote a post I recently found resonating with me: "Look, we don’t necessarily hang murderers to deter other people from committing the same offence. We kill them simply because the punishment has to carry the same weight as the offence. The family of the murderer must go through the same anguish and pain that the murder victim’s family went through. The killer has to…

And that's why it's horrible. The first family is miserable, so in return you make another family miserable as well. Just more misery, not good for anybody.

We consider murderers the lowest of the low, therefore we stoop to the same level. That's the thinking?

In the US, the same people who think government should not have much power, are against taxes, think that abortion is a kind of murder and should be illegal, these people are nevertheless fine with government murdering citizens. I don't get it.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#93

Post by awinter-py »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #23

The way death row inmates are treated is arguably a reason to be against death row. There was also a case where a person on death row couldn’t present exculpatory evidence to prove his innocence because his last appeals lawyer didn’t do it. The Supreme Court literally decided you can prove you have evidence that proves your innocence, that you were done dirty by an incompetent lawyer, it doesn’t matter, you should st…

scotus doctrine on capital appeals rapidly converging to 'the sign says abandon hope all ye who enter here and it would violate due process if we didn't tap the sign'

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#94

Post by Retric »

vGPU wrote: post #63
luminouslow wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the second part: >"Jones also appealed to federal court, where federal investigators found evidence suggesting he was innocent. In both cases, ..."

He was already on parole for a previous violent felony. The police literally arrested him at the scene of the murder where he was half naked and covered in the blood of the victims. He also admitted to having committed statutory rape on the 15 year old that he murdered. Just about every single person on death row will suddenly claim to have found yet another round of evidence proving innocence when their previous app…

The Supreme Court decides what types of arguments can be made, they remand the specifics of individual cases to lower courts. It would have been perfectly fine to say your guilty as hell, but feel free to argue your case indefinitely as there aren’t enough death row inmates to matter.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#95

Post by beerandt »

luminouslow wrote: post #52
beerandt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you can prove you have evidence that proves your innocence, No. This isn't a case of OJ finding the Real Killers(tm). It wasn't even "new" evidence. >Ramirez appealed to federal court where his federal public defenders uncovered evidence of intellectual disability and extensive childhood abuse that hadn't been presented at his initial trial. The ruling only overturned (the 9th circuit precedent) whether the 'default…

You missed the second part: >"Jones also appealed to federal court, where federal investigators found evidence suggesting he was innocent. In both cases, ..."

> found evidence suggesting he was innocent.

No, deciding to (not) call an expert witness to present a different theory (that conflicts with the rest of your defense claims) isn't "found evidence". It's strategy.

It's the same buyers remorse, no-true-scotsman argument. Case lost, therefore ineffective assistance.

The lawyer could have presented a different argument, but didn't. Convicted now wants to make a different argument on appeal.

'That injury shouldn't have killed her that quickly.' isn't new medical evidence. Just an argument not made.

'Also I forgot I saw a boy hit her with a pipe. It must have been that injury. Even though I just claimed the same time frame was impossible if I had hit her.' Isn't new evidence, just a new argument.

This is on top of him not allowing the mom to bring her to the hospital until the next day, after she was already dead. Eta: Oh yea, also on top of the admitted statutory rape stuff.

>where federal investigators found evidence suggesting he was innocent

No, they just decided (with the benefit of hindsight) that they would have used a different defense strategy.

That's not "found evidence suggesting he was innocent."

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#96

Post by api »

dimal wrote: post #34

I’m always confused why conservatives tend to support the death penalty. The conservative ethos is to reduce the power of the state to prevent abuse, but giving the state the right to kill a citizen clearly goes against that. How can you mistrust the state in almost every aspect of society, yet trust it to only kill people that “deserve” it?

That’s not the conservative ethos. Conservatives historically support the maintenance of what they see as natural or divinely ordained hierarchy, including via the power of the state.

Libertarians being called conservatives is a strange Cold War aberration emerging from their mutual opposition to authoritarian Marxism. Now that the USSR is gone and that type of Marxism is mostly very fringe, conservatives are reverting to their historical mean and kicking out libertarians. This is what national conservatism and to some extent MAGA is about.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#97

Post by morkalork »

epicureanideal wrote: post #69
qingcharles wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's often very, very, very hard to introduce new evidence of your innocence after trial. Trial is the point that you show all available evidence to the jury. In Illinois you can attempt to present your evidence only after you have exhausted all of your regular appeal routes (appellate court, state supreme court, SCOTUS, state habeas corpus, fed habeas -- there are 11 levels here first) which can take a decade.…

I'm completely shocked that the "defund the police" movement was where the progressive activists chose to dedicate their attention. Whereas issues like you mention above, and trial reform in general, and prison system reform in general, would have wide bipartisan support. It really makes me suspicious why activists and the media are not advocating for the things 90% of people would agree with. Is the other stuff just…

Justice reform doesn't really matter to the suspect if he's killed being taken into custody.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#98

Post by beerandt »

Retric wrote: post #94
vGPU wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was already on parole for a previous violent felony. The police literally arrested him at the scene of the murder where he was half naked and covered in the blood of the victims. He also admitted to having committed statutory rape on the 15 year old that he murdered. Just about every single person on death row will suddenly claim to have found yet another round of evidence proving innocence when their previous app…

The Supreme Court decides what types of arguments can be made, they remand the specifics of individual cases to lower courts. It would have been perfectly fine to say your guilty as hell, but feel free to argue your case indefinitely as there aren’t enough death row inmates to matter.

Except a state judge had already given them the option to a retrial (based on ineffective counsel, not "evidence of innocence") before the appeal was made to the federal courts.

They apparently didn't like their chances at retrial, even with "effective counsel".

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#99

Post by yieldcrv »

Scarblac wrote: post #92
dsego wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's retributive justice, it's not a deterrent. To quote a post I recently found resonating with me: "Look, we don’t necessarily hang murderers to deter other people from committing the same offence. We kill them simply because the punishment has to carry the same weight as the offence. The family of the murderer must go through the same anguish and pain that the murder victim’s family went through. The killer has to…

And that's why it's horrible. The first family is miserable, so in return you make another family miserable as well. Just more misery, not good for anybody. We consider murderers the lowest of the low, therefore we stoop to the same level. That's the thinking? In the US, the same people who think government should not have much power, are against taxes, think that abortion is a kind of murder and should be illegal, t…

[flagged]

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#100

Post by Retric »

beerandt wrote: post #98
Retric wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court decides what types of arguments can be made, they remand the specifics of individual cases to lower courts. It would have been perfectly fine to say your guilty as hell, but feel free to argue your case indefinitely as there aren’t enough death row inmates to matter.

Except a state judge had already given them the option to a retrial (based on ineffective counsel, not "evidence of innocence") before the appeal was made to the federal courts. They apparently didn't like their chances at retrial, even with "effective counsel".

That’s irrelevant, I expect the both the guilty and innocent to try any argument to get free. Saying you don’t get to make an argument is problematic independent of any specifics because making the argument isn’t winning the argument.
Post reply on HN