If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dallas News)   Texas: puts an innocent man in jail for 18 years. He gets out, so they refuse to pay him the $1.44 million state law says they owe him. Then they attach his wages for child support he owes. Why does he owe it? Texas: puts an innocent man in jail   (dallasnews.com) divider line 315
    More: Asinine, IOU  
•       •       •

26307 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2011 at 9:51 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



315 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-05-04 08:01:53 PM  
Holy shiat. In one thread we're gonna have arguments on the death penalty, prosecutorial misconduct, faceless government, Texas, Rick Perry, and child support systems. And I'm sure someone will throw in a hot chick threadjack at some point.

This will be one to watch.
 
2011-05-04 08:06:36 PM  
Texas should have a tag on Fark. It's like the evil version of Florida.

And also, wow, that is totally farked up.
 
2011-05-04 08:16:22 PM  

ArkAngel: Holy shiat. In one thread we're gonna have arguments on the death penalty, prosecutorial misconduct, faceless government, Texas, Rick Perry, and child support systems. And I'm sure someone will throw in a hot chick threadjack at some point.

This will be one to watch.


This is now a poop thread.
 
2011-05-04 09:53:58 PM  
Done in one, and two, and three.
 
2011-05-04 09:56:32 PM  
It puts the innocent man in jail or else it gets the hose again...
 
2011-05-04 09:57:53 PM  
Rick is a Koch sucking ass.
 
2011-05-04 09:57:55 PM  
Everything's retarded...er in Texas.
 
2011-05-04 09:57:59 PM  
As someone who works with Child Support.

The 'Nothing we can do' by the child support office is bull. Automated systems at some point have manual inputs.

Also a quick check of the interwebs says that the Comptroller is the evil party here and is an elected official which is why she can't be simply fired by the governor.

Now whether or not impeachment is an option, well I just don't know. Technically she's not doing anything illegal, but that's because being made of evil isn't illegal.
 
2011-05-04 09:59:37 PM  

SphericalTime: Texas should have a tag on Fark. It's like the evil version of Florida.

And also, wow, that is totally farked up.


This was my exact thought after reading the headline.
 
2011-05-04 10:00:22 PM  
I can't wait to move out of here. This whole state is filled with derp, and that's putting it mildly.
 
2011-05-04 10:00:29 PM  
Someone give him a pair of bootstraps.

/our system can majorly suck sometimes
 
2011-05-04 10:01:00 PM  
He owes $5k back child support, the Texas OAG is all over him like flies on shiat.

MY ex owes $40K+ back child support (and counting), and the Texas OAG sits on its fanny and does NOTHING.

Fark Texas.
 
2011-05-04 10:01:38 PM  
"because the court did not use the words "actual innocence" in its release order, Comptroller Susan Combs said the state should not pay"


innocent until proven guilty?

so if he's let out because it cant be proven that he was guilty... then he's actually innocent. theres no half innocent in american law as far as i know.
 
2011-05-04 10:02:00 PM  

SphericalTime: that is totally farked up.


just came to say this
 
2011-05-04 10:02:08 PM  
I heard about this on the radio. the problem, according to the radioman, with this case was the daughter of the original judge in the case was somehow involved in the exculpatory phase of the proceedings. she worded it weird so as to protect daddy by not admitting how f*cked up the trial was or some such, his stupid lawyers didn't pay attention to the legalese being used and how they might affect his ability to get paid. now he can't get the money without suing or getting the law changed. real clusterf*ck, but he'll be alright eventually. very nice guy though.
 
2011-05-04 10:02:44 PM  

ArkAngel: Holy shiat. In one thread we're gonna have arguments on the death penalty, prosecutorial misconduct, faceless government, Texas, Rick Perry, and child support systems. And I'm sure someone will throw in a hot chick threadjack at some point.

This will be one to watch.


You forgot race as well.

Anyway, this shows how dangerous bureaucracy and computerized automation of policy can be. It should be obvious to everyone dealing with this case what the right thing morally to do is, yet people get all stuck up on their little petty rule system.
 
2011-05-04 10:02:52 PM  
$1.44 million does not sound like nearly enough for 18 years in prison.
 
2011-05-04 10:03:04 PM  
can someone explain why Texas doesn't have it's own tag?
 
2011-05-04 10:03:20 PM  
he should sue his lawyers.
 
2011-05-04 10:04:05 PM  
www.esquire.com
 
2011-05-04 10:04:07 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: He owes $5k back child support, the Texas OAG is all over him like flies on shiat.

MY ex owes $40K+ back child support (and counting), and the Texas OAG sits on its fanny and does NOTHING.

Fark Texas.


you sound cougarlicious
 
2011-05-04 10:04:13 PM  
So I have a crazy little question... Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did? They make it pretty clear what he did wasn't an accident. Whether he believed the guy was really guilty or not, deceiving the courts in order to unfairly railroad him through... It seems like they could cite some laws the former DA broke if they wanted to. Let's start with perjury, for one.
 
2011-05-04 10:04:19 PM  

freewill: $1.44 million does not sound like nearly enough for 18 years in prison.


no f*cking shiat. and he came close to getting executed as well.
 
2011-05-04 10:04:29 PM  

SamFlagg: Also a quick check of the interwebs says that the Comptroller is the evil party here and is an elected official which is why she can't be simply fired by the governor.


Thanks I was going to ask if the governor could fire her. Too bad. Biatch. Justice needs to be done for the guy this is wrong.
 
2011-05-04 10:04:29 PM  
His kids should have the right to sue the state for so many things.

And he should get to surprise butt sex the original prosecutor who fabricated evidence that led to his conviction.

/poop!
 
2011-05-04 10:04:54 PM  

BigSnatch: ArkAngel: Holy shiat. In one thread we're gonna have arguments on the death penalty, prosecutorial misconduct, faceless government, Texas, Rick Perry, and child support systems. And I'm sure someone will throw in a hot chick threadjack at some point.

This will be one to watch.

This is now a poop thread.


I raise you two Pickles.
img.photobucket.com
 
2011-05-04 10:05:10 PM  
ahahahahaha I totally knew this guy was a black!!!

*sob*
 
2011-05-04 10:06:01 PM  
I genuinely do not understand how certain people can live with themselves.
 
2011-05-04 10:06:22 PM  
Today's submissions alone nearly warrant a Texas tag.

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
 
2011-05-04 10:07:08 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: He owes $5k back child support, the Texas OAG is all over him like flies on shiat.

MY ex owes $40K+ back child support (and counting), and the Texas OAG sits on its fanny and does NOTHING.

Fark Texas.


They are only after this guy because he made the state look bad by proving he was wrongfully jailed. Your ex is only hurting his children, who are not elected officials. Hence, they are of no concern to the state.
 
2011-05-04 10:07:40 PM  
1. Get out of prison.

2. Get out of Texas.

3. Get the f*ck out of Texas.

4. GET THE F*CK OUT OF TEXAS!!!

If he stays, he'll end up back in jail over some bullshiat and probably 'hang himself in his cell in despair'.
 
2011-05-04 10:10:42 PM  
Wow, Texas refusing to treat a black guy with respect, so surprising.
 
2011-05-04 10:10:43 PM  
Texas: so many people to fark over, so little time.
 
2011-05-04 10:11:00 PM  
I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke, and by gum, it put them on the map!
 
2011-05-04 10:11:05 PM  

Brainwash: SphericalTime: Texas should have a tag on Fark. It's like the evil version of Florida.

And also, wow, that is totally farked up.

This was my exact thought after reading the headline.



Thirded. Let's get a texas tag
 
2011-05-04 10:12:14 PM  
$5,420 - Total to be collected by the state (to be paid to the mother of his now-grown children for expenses she incurred between 1998 and 2002)

$5400 for 5 years of child support!?!? I wish.
 
2011-05-04 10:12:33 PM  
Texas: the GOP model for America.
 
2011-05-04 10:12:39 PM  
Too late to give Texas back to the Mexicans?
 
2011-05-04 10:13:12 PM  

relcec: freewill: $1.44 million does not sound like nearly enough for 18 years in prison.

no f*cking shiat. and he came close to getting executed as well.


Hazard pay?
 
2011-05-04 10:13:40 PM  
The best argument against the death penalty. Not only do courts fark things up by accident, they are ready and willing to intentionally make shiat up and send innocent people to prison.
 
2011-05-04 10:14:32 PM  
Maybe the money burned up in the wildfires.
 
2011-05-04 10:14:36 PM  
And people wonder why I flip out on them when they refer to Alberta as Texas North.
 
2011-05-04 10:15:30 PM  

Stickdeath: Too late to give Texas back to the Mexicans?


Apparently, you're not familiar with Mexicans. They're rather intelligent people.

So... no.
 
2011-05-04 10:15:35 PM  

vd61: Brainwash: SphericalTime: Texas should have a tag on Fark. It's like the evil version of Florida.

And also, wow, that is totally farked up.

This was my exact thought after reading the headline.


Thirded. Let's get a texas tag


It's ready and waiting for official approval:

people.virginia.edu
 
2011-05-04 10:15:41 PM  

Genta: "because the court did not use the words "actual innocence" in its release order, Comptroller Susan Combs said the state should not pay"


innocent until proven guilty?


By that standard, we should probably not accept Susan Combs diploma unless it contains the words "actual intelligence"
 
2011-05-04 10:15:41 PM  

relcec: I heard about this on the radio. the problem, according to the radioman....


I stopped reading after "radioman." It conjures it images of a 30s radio announcer reporting on the Hindenburg or V-E Day....

Awesome.

/radioman
 
2011-05-04 10:17:07 PM  
i55.tinypic.com
 
2011-05-04 10:17:08 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: The best argument against the death penalty. Not only do courts fark things up by accident, they are ready and willing to intentionally make shiat up and send innocent people to prison.


It's not the crime that matters, but rather the conviction.
 
2011-05-04 10:17:34 PM  
Texas owes this man his money.

Texas owes the mother of his kids the child support.

Texas owes former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta a slow and VERY painful public lynching.

Fark owes Texas its long overdue tag.


/It's the right thing to do, Drew
//For the children
 
2011-05-04 10:18:35 PM  
Out of prison, still getting farked in the ass.
 
2011-05-04 10:19:29 PM  
Hey Broom...

Is that Caroline Decker of Corpus Christi?!
 
2011-05-04 10:20:01 PM  
Hell, if they'd just killed the guy, none of this would be a story now, would it?
 
2011-05-04 10:20:12 PM  

basemetal: Out of prison, still getting farked in the ass.


Leave my mom out of this!
 
2011-05-04 10:20:24 PM  
Graves was convicted in 1994 of assisting Robert Carter in multiple murders in 1992. There was no physical evidence linking Graves to the crime, and his conviction relied primarily on Carter's testimony that Graves was his accomplice. Two weeks before Carter was scheduled to be executed in 2000, he provided a statement saying he lied about Graves's involvement in the crime. He repeated that statement minutes before his execution.

So basically the only evidence linking him to the crime was the actual murderer, who eventually admitted to lying. Jesus christ, give this guy double what he's owed.
 
2011-05-04 10:21:43 PM  
"Look at me. I'm fat, black, can't dance, and I have two gay fathers. People have been messing with me my whole life. I learned a long time ago there's no sense getting all riled up every time a bunch of idiots give you a hard time. In the end, the universe tends to unfold as it should. Plus I have a really large penis. That keeps me happy. "
 
2011-05-04 10:21:53 PM  
SphericalTime
Texas should have a tag on Fark. It's like the evil version of Florida.


img5.imageshack.us
 
2011-05-04 10:23:43 PM  

SphericalTime: Texas should have a tag on Fark. It's like the evil version of Florida.

And also, wow, that is totally farked up.


Drew says Texas and California doesn't get trier own tags because "we expect them to be weird", Florida doesn't really have an excuse.

state tags;
NOT YOURS!
 
2011-05-04 10:24:32 PM  
Why do black people live in Texas? If I were black and in Texas, I'd be getting the fark out of there ASAP.

Gotta love America. Death row for an innocent man, then garnishing his wages for being in jail. Seriously, what is wrong with us? How did we become this farking broken?
 
2011-05-04 10:31:50 PM  
Oh okay, he was on death row. Well that'll teach me to read the article before attempting to troll!

Can Texas do anything right?
 
2011-05-04 10:32:10 PM  

Fett56: Why do black people live in Texas?


Well, they used to live in New Orleans, but ... ya know.
 
2011-05-04 10:32:25 PM  
Texas tag? Please?
 
2011-05-04 10:33:06 PM  
One of the best parts of living in Texas, aside from the taquerias, was listening to the Huntsville prison show on Saturday nights. Inmates would call in, often those on death row, and talk to loved ones.

It was really stirring; guilty or not, everyone deserves a voice.
 
2011-05-04 10:33:18 PM  

Fett56: Why do black

people live in Texas? If I were black a human being and in Texas, I'd be getting the fark out of there ASAP.

FTFY
 
2011-05-04 10:34:16 PM  
$1.4m - $5k. Problem?
 
2011-05-04 10:34:45 PM  
"I'm sure he's done something wrong in his life at some point, so really, he deserved it."
-This is what LEO and prison guards actually believe
 
2011-05-04 10:35:08 PM  
I really hope this woman sues the state of Texas for back child support payments.

I'd laugh.
 
2011-05-04 10:35:20 PM  
No one important will pay attention. This crap will continue.
 
2011-05-04 10:37:35 PM  

Genta: "so if he's let out because it cant be proven that he was guilty... then he's actually innocent. theres no half innocent in american law as far as i know."


Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent. A judge or jury never finds a defendant "innocent" rather the finding is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they think he is guilty but they have a reasonable doubt, he is legally "not guilty" even though he might be factually guilty of the crime.
 
2011-05-04 10:39:17 PM  

Fett56: Why do black people with half a brain live in Texas? If I were black able to move in any way and in Texas, I'd be getting the fark out of there ASAP.

Gotta love America. Death row for an innocent man, then garnishing his wages for being in jail. Seriously, what is wrong with us? How did we become this farking broken?

 
2011-05-04 10:42:24 PM  
I like my tag better.

www.charliekilo.com
 
2011-05-04 10:43:04 PM  

SinPiEqualsZero: Someone give him a pair of bootstraps.

/our system can majorly suck sometimes


While I don't disagree, it doesn't sound like you can blame the "system" this time. It sounds more like 1 single person choosing to be an evil asshat.
 
2011-05-04 10:43:10 PM  

1-phenylpropan-2-amine: $1.4m - $5k. Problem?


Yes. He owes the $5k for being in prison due to false charges. If he hadn't been in prison, he wouldn't not have incurred the $5k debt. Therefore the prosecutor should have to pay the $5k. And then be whipped.
 
2011-05-04 10:44:28 PM  

Fett56: 1-phenylpropan-2-amine: $1.4m - $5k. Problem?Yes. He owes the $5k for being in prison due to false charges. If he hadn't been in prison, he wouldn't not have incurred the $5k debt. Therefore the prosecutor should have to pay the $5k. And then be whipped.


Point. I guess the big problem is that they aren't even doing this.
 
2011-05-04 10:44:45 PM  

mod3072: SinPiEqualsZero: Someone give him a pair of bootstraps.

/our system can majorly suck sometimes

While I don't disagree, it doesn't sound like you can blame the "system" this time. It sounds more like 1 single person choosing to be an evil asshat.


And a country supposedly ruled by the will of the people allowing it to happen.

Oh, and the "system" almost executed an innocent man.

So yeah, sounds like the "system" deserves its fair share of the blame.
 
2011-05-04 10:45:33 PM  

mcmnky: Fett56: Why do black people with half a brain live in Texas? If I were black able to move in any way and in Texas, I'd be getting the fark out of there ASAP.

Gotta love America. Death row for an innocent man, then garnishing his wages for being in jail. Seriously, what is wrong with us? How did we become this farking broken?


When we cared more about convictions than justice, money than people, and everything else over the individual.
 
2011-05-04 10:45:55 PM  

TheWhoppah: Genta: "so if he's let out because it cant be proven that he was guilty... then he's actually innocent. theres no half innocent in american law as far as i know."

Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent. A judge or jury never finds a defendant "innocent" rather the finding is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they think he is guilty but they have a reasonable doubt, he is legally "not guilty" even though he might be factually guilty of the crime.


Which would mean that the phrase "actually innocent" would never appear in the release order, which means Texas never has to reimburse someone who was jailed without cause! It's all coming together!
 
2011-05-04 10:46:16 PM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay:
The best argument against the death penalty. Not only do courts fark things up by accident, they are ready and willing to intentionally make shiat up and send innocent people to prison.

Well duh. Do you know how bad it looks during promotion and election time when you are shown to fail a bunch of murder trials just because there is no evidence that the guy you are prosecuting is guilty.
 
2011-05-04 10:46:35 PM  

Fett56: Why do black people live in Texas? If I were black and in Texas, I'd be getting the fark out of there ASAP.

Gotta love America. Death row for an innocent man, then garnishing his wages for being in jail. Seriously, what is wrong with us? How did we become this farking broken?


Ever hear of the Spanish Inquisition? The Salem Witch trials?

Most of us are stupid, dangerous animals, held back from committing unspeakable atrocities by the thinnest veneer of civilization, and it's been that way for as long as civilization has existed.

There are no "good old days". People have always been assholes, for the most part.
 
2011-05-04 10:46:38 PM  
Shouldn't he sue his defense attorneys?
 
2011-05-04 10:48:05 PM  
Have you guys ever coughed up a chunky, white piece of...something...that smelled like the pure essence of bad breath in solid form?
 
2011-05-04 10:48:18 PM  
Texas is a blight on America.

Please secede.
 
2011-05-04 10:48:49 PM  

sip111: Shouldn't he sue his defense attorneys?


I gotta hear this one....

On what grounds should he sue his defense attorney?
 
2011-05-04 10:49:01 PM  

El_Maestro: Hell, if they'd just killed the guy, none of this would be a story now, would it?


Texas: where whitey is too dumb to do racist right.
 
2011-05-04 10:49:14 PM  
Oh, Texas. One of the few states that makes Indiana look sane.
 
2011-05-04 10:50:52 PM  

mongbiohazard: Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did?


The statute of limitations would prevent his conviction even if you could get past prosecutorial immunity.
 
2011-05-04 10:53:41 PM  
This is all I have to say...
 
2011-05-04 10:55:13 PM  
What?
A millionaire without a rich daddy?
Unpossible! So, no, no money...
 
2011-05-04 10:55:29 PM  

jst3p: sip111: Shouldn't he sue his defense attorneys?

I gotta hear this one....

On what grounds should he sue his defense attorney?


I'll take this one.

It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.

Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.

So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
 
2011-05-04 10:56:34 PM  

trillium13: I can't wait to move out of here. This whole state is filled with derp, and that's putting it mildly.


I looked at your profile. Looks like you fit right in.
 
2011-05-04 10:57:09 PM  

Fett56: mod3072: SinPiEqualsZero: Someone give him a pair of bootstraps.

/our system can majorly suck sometimes

While I don't disagree, it doesn't sound like you can blame the "system" this time. It sounds more like 1 single person choosing to be an evil asshat.

And a country supposedly ruled by the will of the people allowing it to happen.

Oh, and the "system" almost executed an innocent man.

So yeah, sounds like the "system" deserves its fair share of the blame.


I was referring to the comptroller not paying the man, not the original wrongful conviction.
 
2011-05-04 10:57:53 PM  
So the moral of this story - lawyers are scumbags.
 
2011-05-04 10:58:51 PM  
Hmm...

t0.gstatic.com
 
2011-05-04 11:00:53 PM  
Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.
 
2011-05-04 11:02:27 PM  

Fett56: jst3p: sip111: Shouldn't he sue his defense attorneys?

I gotta hear this one....

On what grounds should he sue his defense attorney?

I'll take this one.

It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.

Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.

So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.


While I realize you can sue for just about whatever reason you want, and I am no law talking guy, but I would be surprised if suing your lawyer for incompetence even occasionally results in an award. I get most of my knowledge from law and order but don't they have to go beyond "they suck" and into "they broke the law" before you are going to win that case?
 
2011-05-04 11:03:05 PM  
Stories like this make me surprised there aren't more real-life "Law abiding citizen" scenarios where people lose their minds and proceed to systematically destroy the system.
 
2011-05-04 11:03:26 PM  
i1125.photobucket.com
 
2011-05-04 11:04:31 PM  
They're farking this guy.

If you've decided he's innocent enough to release from jail, you should pay him for his trouble.

If he isn't that innocent, you should keep him in jail.

/and I don't believe in the statue of limitations.
 
2011-05-04 11:05:07 PM  

TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.


Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.
 
2011-05-04 11:05:16 PM  

jst3p: sip111: Shouldn't he sue his defense attorneys?

I gotta hear this one....

On what grounds should he sue his defense attorney?


Nvm. Read it. He should tar and feather the former district attorney, then high-tail it to Mexico.
 
2011-05-04 11:06:07 PM  

mongbiohazard: So I have a crazy little question... Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did? They make it pretty clear what he did wasn't an accident. Whether he believed the guy was really guilty or not, deceiving the courts in order to unfairly railroad him through... It seems like they could cite some laws the former DA broke if they wanted to. Let's start with perjury, for one.


Prosecutors have qualified immunity for what they say in court (plus no oath outside court, no perjury), some of it should be Brady violations, but the Supreme Court basically just gutted the ability to hold anyone responsible for those. Depending on Texas law, the best options are probably malicious prosecution (which this case probably doesn't fit), or abuse of process. Unfortunately those are civil torts (resulting in monetary damages, not criminal charges that would put the prosecutor away).
 
2011-05-04 11:06:12 PM  
I am convinced that all proud residents of Texas suffer from some sort of collective state-induced Stockholm syndrome.

All too often it is impossible to explain why anyone would stick up for the state.

/proud resident of Texas
 
2011-05-04 11:07:16 PM  
I'm sure a bill from the state of Texas for his food and housing is being sent to him as we speak


/lived in Texas for 3 years
//3 years too many
 
2011-05-04 11:08:09 PM  

TheWhoppah:
The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.


And how do you know who is "actually innocent"? God tells you?

Do you even know what "reasonable doubt" means?
 
2011-05-04 11:08:12 PM  

TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.


There are three levels of guilt. Guilty, not guilty due to lack of evidence, and not guilty. Not guilty due to lack of evidence means that you're still guilty but that they couldn't meet the minimum standards for guilt for a crime.

Why does this even exist?

It's just like saying, "Just because those kids admitted they were brainwashed by their mother to say you raped them, and just because you were in Berlin while they were in America when you raped them, doesn't mean you're innocent! It just means we can't prove your guilt!"

In fact, it's the exact same thing.

If you imprison someone and the evidence used to convict you turns out to be false, you should get paid. End of story. It's not a common event by any means, but it certainly isn't unheard of.

This is basically telling people they have to prove their innocence (pretty much impossible) if they don't want to get raped with no recourse by the legal system.
 
2011-05-04 11:08:41 PM  

LeafyGreens: One of the best parts of living in Texas, aside from the taquerias, was listening to the Huntsville prison show on Saturday nights. Inmates would call in, often those on death row, and talk to loved ones.

It was really stirring; guilty or not, everyone deserves a voice.


That's really one of the best parts? Really? You do realizing that you are just confirming the "Texas sucks" sentiment, right?
 
2011-05-04 11:09:14 PM  
This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.

/many of y'all are probably familiar with the case
//I literally shook with anger the first time I read it
 
2011-05-04 11:09:48 PM  
Casey: It's a vicious circle.
Dan: It is.
Casey: It's a neverending circle.
Dan: Just keeps going round and round.
Casey: Never ends.
Dan: That's what makes it vicious.
Casey: And a circle.
 
2011-05-04 11:10:51 PM  
Other than the wrongly convicted, 18 years-in-prison, now-free victim, are there any adults involved in all of this?
 
2011-05-04 11:10:56 PM  

lightrunner: Hmm...


That's a MAN baby, yeah!
 
2011-05-04 11:12:36 PM  

Inibrius: Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty.


Here in the real world people who are factually guilty are often NOT convicted because the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Just today Chris Simms was found not guilty of driving while stoned.... look at his booking photo and let us know what you think. If the jury has reasonable doubt there can't be a conviction. Remember O.J. Simpson?
 
2011-05-04 11:13:17 PM  

Hrist: There are three levels of guilt. Guilty, not guilty due to lack of evidence, and not guilty. Not guilty due to lack of evidence means that you're still guilty but that they couldn't meet the minimum standards for guilt for a crime.


Huh? Some people are found not guilty due to lack of evidence and that is the same as being found guilty?

I am going to need some more information here.
 
2011-05-04 11:13:56 PM  

TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.


That is some of the biggest bullshiat I have ever seen. Sorry, but "we know you did it but can't prove it" is not remotely a legally justifiable position.
 
2011-05-04 11:15:14 PM  

TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.


Damn.....this thread was going all crazy like and this guy decides to drop a huge steaming load of sensible, reasonable, and straight shiat on it....

Good way to harsh the buzz man.....
 
2011-05-04 11:16:34 PM  

Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.


Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...
 
2011-05-04 11:17:50 PM  

MrPenny: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Damn.....this thread was going all crazy like and this guy decides to drop a huge steaming load of sensible, reasonable, and straight shiat on it....

Good way to harsh the buzz man.....


Really? You found his explanation sensible and reasonable?
 
2011-05-04 11:18:51 PM  

veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.


That man murdered his own three young children in a fire. Twin infants and a two year old. There were four empty bottles of charcoal starter fluid right outside the front door, a fact the biased New Yorker article failed to mention. Contrary to what you were led to believe, even the "expert" quoted for that story did not conclude that the fire was not arson. Not even close. He concluded that four of the 12 clues of arson could have alternate explanations. Anti-death penalty zealots hand picked certain sentences from the report and jumped up and down claiming that man was innocent. He wasn't.
 
2011-05-04 11:20:33 PM  

jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...


Not convicted is not convicted. When does a judge ever find someone innocent?
 
2011-05-04 11:20:58 PM  

jst3p: sip111: Shouldn't he sue his defense attorneys?

I gotta hear this one....

On what grounds should he sue his defense attorney?


now, let me preface this by saying all I know about the case is what I heard from the radioman, but his lawyers that got him out screwed up by not paying attention to the legalese the prosecutors used when they declared him *innocent* and turned him loose. that's why he can't get his cash even though there is a statute that says he is owed 1.8 million or whatever. that looks like a negligent error, and there was obviously significant harm.

from what I gathered from the radioman, this wrongly convicted man is about the sweetest man alive, and this is probably the innocence project or some such that got him out, so he won't be suing them.

he'll get his money eventually someday though.
 
2011-05-04 11:23:19 PM  

TheWhoppah: veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.

That man murdered his own three young children in a fire. Twin infants and a two year old. There were four empty bottles of charcoal starter fluid right outside the front door, a fact the biased New Yorker article failed to mention. Contrary to what you were led to believe, even the "expert" quoted for that story did not conclude that the fire was not arson. Not even close. He concluded that four of the 12 clues of arson could have alternate explanations. Anti-death penalty zealots hand picked certain sentences from the report and jumped up and down claiming that man was innocent. He wasn't.


I haven't read it, but do you not see the big enormous gaping legal problem you just laid out there yourself? Alternate explanations often mean reasonable doubt. It's probably a bad idea to execute people who might not have done it.
 
2011-05-04 11:26:33 PM  

Hrist: There are three levels of guilt. Guilty, not guilty due to lack of evidence, and not guilty. Not guilty due to lack of evidence means that you're still guilty but that they couldn't meet the minimum standards for guilt for a crime.

Why does this even exist?

It's just like saying, "Just because those kids admitted they were brainwashed by their mother to say you raped them, and just because you were in Berlin while they were in America when you raped them, doesn't mean you're innocent! It just means we can't prove your guilt!"

In fact, it's the exact same thing.

If you imprison someone and the evidence used to convict you turns out to be false, you should get paid. End of story. It's not a common event by any means, but it certainly isn't unheard of.

This is basically telling people they have to prove their innocence (pretty much impossible) if they don't want to get raped with no recourse by the legal system.


Good post.
 
2011-05-04 11:26:57 PM  
they all agreed in fact that this man was actually innocent and was owed the money, the defense lawyers f*cked up and didn't notice one little word was out of place or some such. I know they are good people and all, but ultimately it was their responsibility to make sure it was there.
 
2011-05-04 11:28:09 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2011-05-04 11:28:29 PM  
"I'm willing to testify to the fact that we believe he's innocent," says Kelly Siegler, the special prosecutor in the case. "I've signed an affidavit. I'm not sure what we are supposed to do to make it happen."
 
2011-05-04 11:29:17 PM  

TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.


What is this... I don't even....


/You do realize you are a complete douchebag right?
 
2011-05-04 11:30:33 PM  
That is seriously farked up.
 
2011-05-04 11:31:35 PM  

Schlock: jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...

Not convicted is not convicted. When does a judge ever find someone innocent?


Actual innocence is a post-conviction finding overturning a wrongful conviction. Think of it this way, at the first trial you're innocent until proven guilty - therefore guilty or not guilty. After conviction you're guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof shifts from state to defense.
 
2011-05-04 11:31:37 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: The best argument against the death penalty. Not only do courts fark things up by accident, they are ready and willing to intentionally make shiat up and send innocent people to prison.


Anybody involved with it ought to be tried and prosecuted for attempted murder.
 
2011-05-04 11:31:55 PM  

jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...


Rick Perry doesn't know what morality is, he thinks that normative ethics is something that involves list making and Santa Clause. The man is retarded, and is reelected simply because he has nice hair and is a republican. The highest point in his life so far was shooting some wolfs with is handgun while jogging. Also there's a little known state tenet that holds, any one qualified to be Governor of Texas should never, under any circumstances, be aloud to do the job. Zaphod Beeblebrox was Governor before Bush Jr.
 
2011-05-04 11:34:44 PM  

SinPiEqualsZero: Someone give him a pair of bootstraps.

/our system can majorly suck sometimes


I'm thinking about opening a bootstrap factory, should be really profitable!
 
2011-05-04 11:36:40 PM  

MrPenny: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Damn.....this thread was going all crazy like and this guy decides to drop a huge steaming load of sensible, reasonable, and straight shiat on it....

Good way to harsh the buzz man.....


What he's said is completely nonsensical. ALL "not guilty" decisions are due to not being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and lack of evidence. The burden of proof is on the state, the defense's sole job is to poke holes in the prosecutions case, and they aren't obligated to provide any proof of their own.

You can't PROVE innocence, all you can do is disrupt the prosecution's attempt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
2011-05-04 11:36:45 PM  

sip111: jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...

Rick Perry doesn't know what morality is, he thinks that normative ethics is something that involves list making and Santa Clause. The man is retarded, and is reelected simply because he has nice hair and is a republican. The highest point in his life so far was shooting some wolfs with his handgun while jogging. Also there's a little known state tenet that holds, any one qualified to be Governor of Texas should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to do the job. Zaphod Beeblebrox was Governor before Bush Jr.


der fixeds dim it spelling errors.
 
2011-05-04 11:39:02 PM  

sip111: jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...

Rick Perry doesn't know what morality is, he thinks that normative ethics is something that involves list making and Santa Clause. The man is retarded, and is reelected simply because he has nice hair and is a republican. The highest point in his life so far was shooting some wolfs with is handgun while jogging. Also there's a little known state tenet that holds, any one qualified to be Governor of Texas should never, under any circumstances, be aloud to do the job. Zaphod Beeblebrox was Governor before Bush Jr.


Um, I'm pretty sure we're of the same opinion on Rick Perry. Maybe you just missed this in the article? "Despite criticism from Gov. Rick Perry - and pretty much everyone else - the comptroller has stood by this decision, which has prompted a lawsuit."

My point was Rick Perry, who barely qualifies as a human being, can see that this is an injustice. That makes this comptroller less human than Rick Perry, which is almost an accomplishment.
 
2011-05-04 11:40:24 PM  
Look, I didnt say it was right or good. The Comptroller is the guardian of the state treasury. We can't have her just deciding on her own that some law is terrible and she is gonna just pay the guy anyway. It is a slippery slope. If we allow elected officials to break the law as they see fit then eventually the law won't apply to them.

The congress is gonna have to fix the law and then Rick Perry will sign it. Democracy takes time. A dictatorship can do this sort of thing quickly but frankly I don't want Rick Perry as a dictator, do you?
 
2011-05-04 11:43:42 PM  

jadedlee: Actual innocence is a post-conviction finding overturning a wrongful conviction. Think of it this way, at the first trial you're innocent until proven guilty - therefore guilty or not guilty. After conviction you're guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof shifts from state to defense.


Alright, now I get you. But then how do you have a conviction overturned without the person being considered innocent by default, as in this case? The fact that it was overturned should mean de facto innocence, regardless of how it was worded on the paperwork
 
2011-05-04 11:44:10 PM  
The Washington/Burleson County D.A. is

William E. Parham,
110 S. Park Street,
Brenham, Texas 77833-3645,
phone 979-277-6247,
wpa­rha­m[nospam-﹫-backwards]yt­nuoca­w*com
 
2011-05-04 11:44:54 PM  

TheWhoppah: If we allow elected officials to break the law as they see fit then eventually the law won't apply to them.


I'm sorry, but you stretched it juuust a bit too far with that one.
 
2011-05-04 11:46:25 PM  

Schlock: MrPenny: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Damn.....this thread was going all crazy like and this guy decides to drop a huge steaming load of sensible, reasonable, and straight shiat on it....

Good way to harsh the buzz man.....

What he's said is completely nonsensical. ALL "not guilty" decisions are due to not being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and lack of evidence. The burden of proof is on the state, the defense's sole job is to poke holes in the prosecutions case, and they aren't obligated to provide any proof of their own.

You can't PROVE innocence, all you can do is disrupt the prosecution's attempt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


Again, after the conviction the burden shifts from the state to the defense. New evidence deemed by the Court to show actual innocence (like hey, we caught the real killer and it wasn't this guy) is used to grant reviews which overturn convictions.
 
2011-05-04 11:47:31 PM  

jadedlee: New evidence deemed by the Court to show actual innocence (like hey, we caught the real killer and it wasn't this guy) is used to grant reviews which overturn convictions.


You mean, like the real killer saying "hey, this guy who you convicted, solely based on my testimony? Yeah, he's innocent..." more than once?
 
2011-05-04 11:47:41 PM  

Schlock: You can't PROVE innocence, all you can do is disrupt the prosecution's attempt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt


The law in Texas is that you only get paid if you were in prison while actually innocent. If you are released on a technicallity that doesn't count. You only get paid if you can prove you were innocent. Lots of states have this exact same rule and some states don't offer ANYTHING AT ALL to wrongfully convicted prisoners.
 
2011-05-04 11:48:54 PM  

TheWhoppah: If you are released on a technicallity that doesn't count.


So the expert witness recanting his testimony, on multiple occasions, is a technicality. Got it.
 
2011-05-04 11:48:59 PM  

veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.

/many of y'all are probably familiar with the case
//I literally shook with anger the first time I read it


I hope that in my lifetime Texas is forced to admit to this. I'm sure they won't, but I'm with you, this is the best example of our flawed system.
 
2011-05-04 11:49:43 PM  

apoptotic: And people wonder why I flip out on them when they refer to Alberta as Texas North.


Here here! We're nothing like Texas. The average Alberta politician is at his very worst a pushy jerk. They aren't evil or malicious, they don't really have much in the way of a core defining political, philosophical or religious guiding principal, they are typically personally uninspired and bland people. The only thing that unites the two versions of our continental Right wing conservatives together is the steadfast notion that most of their constituents is a solipsist who doesn't like to hear anybody else's opinion on any topic whatsoever.

Albertans are more like Nebraskans, Dakotans, maybe Minnesotans, Wisconsinites, or perhaps Ohioans than anybody from the West. On our very darkest day, we never even beat "Colorado" for socially repugnant abuse of power.
 
2011-05-04 11:50:18 PM  
Expert = "only," my mistake.
 
2011-05-04 11:50:20 PM  
Texas: a whole state of examples of what NOT to do.
 
2011-05-04 11:51:24 PM  

TheWhoppah: Genta: "so if he's let out because it cant be proven that he was guilty... then he's actually innocent. theres no half innocent in american law as far as i know."

Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent. A judge or jury never finds a defendant "innocent" rather the finding is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they think he is guilty but they have a reasonable doubt, he is legally "not guilty" even though he might be factually guilty of the crime.


So we should use a cattle-brand on their forehead "P/G" = partial guilty? Possibly we could add another "/M" for = maybe on top of that. You can never be sure! Think of the children! Convict or don't Convict. Anything else is UnAmerican according to your brainwashing? In my 1975's schooling while I was pledging allegence to the USA flag, being brainwashed about how we were the shining light of the entire world to be looked to by the entire world, maybe I think a bit differently. Yeesh, people like you are scary.
 
2011-05-04 11:53:00 PM  

jadedlee: sip111: jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...

Rick Perry doesn't know what morality is, he thinks that normative ethics is something that involves list making and Santa Clause. The man is retarded, and is reelected simply because he has nice hair and is a republican. The highest point in his life so far was shooting some wolfs with is handgun while jogging. Also there's a little known state tenet that holds, any one qualified to be Governor of Texas should never, under any circumstances, be aloud to do the job. Zaphod Beeblebrox was Governor before Bush Jr.

Um, I'm pretty sure we're of the same opinion on Rick Perry. Maybe you just missed this in the article? "Despite criticism from Gov. Rick Perry - and pretty much everyone else - the comptroller has stood by this decision, which has prompted a lawsuit."

My point was Rick Perry, who barely qualifies as a human being, can see that this is an injustice. That makes this comptroller less human than Rick Perry, which is almost an accomplishment.


*Rereads, dammit, puts down beer.* Very true. The comptrollers in Texas are also historically incompetent, uncultured-and proud of it-dontcha' know (they see Mexico from their houses in Austin), baboons. The one before her, who could at least count higher than Ricky, that is all the way to ham, tried to tell people what were and weren't "real" religionsTM, and went about revoking tax exempt status from those she deemed "not real religions."

Seriously, you can't make this sort of stuff up.
 
2011-05-04 11:53:13 PM  
fark Susan Combs, dumb farking biatch. That man should get his payout doubled for the trouble (to put it mildly) he had to go through. He was totally farked by the system.

I'd write if her if it wasn't futile.
 
2011-05-04 11:53:44 PM  
ahem

GIVE THAT INNOCENT MAN THE MONEY YOU CHEAP BASTARDS!

that is all.
 
2011-05-04 11:54:02 PM  
I think Florida should sue Drew to make him add a Texas tag. If we've got one they should have one too. What a farked up place.
 
2011-05-04 11:55:52 PM  
Next time Texas threatens to secede can we just call their bluff?

/please
 
2011-05-04 11:56:16 PM  

TheWhoppah: mongbiohazard: Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did?

The statute of limitations would prevent his conviction even if you could get past prosecutorial immunity.


So it's OK to falsely imprison someone with false evidence, and hide away (using state resources to do so) and evade justice, but it is OK to put an innocent person away for 18 years? You are really full of derp. People like you really scare me. yeeesh.
 
2011-05-04 11:56:44 PM  
Farkin Texas. Succeed from the union already. Good riddance.
 
2011-05-04 11:57:32 PM  

TheWhoppah: mongbiohazard: Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did?

The statute of limitations would prevent his conviction even if you could get past prosecutorial immunity.


Plus the Supreme Court has essentially ruled that you can't sue the prosecutor, no matter what they do.
 
2011-05-04 11:58:16 PM  
mercerism

24.media.tumblr.com

We CANNOT allow this to happen.

Mexico has suffered enough.
 
2011-05-04 11:58:48 PM  

TheWhoppah: Schlock: You can't PROVE innocence, all you can do is disrupt the prosecution's attempt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

The law in Texas is that you only get paid if you were in prison while actually innocent. If you are released on a technicallity that doesn't count. You only get paid if you can prove you were innocent. Lots of states have this exact same rule and some states don't offer ANYTHING AT ALL to wrongfully convicted prisoners.


don't bring stupid in here pls.
 
2011-05-05 12:00:19 AM  

TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.


Funny, so the Comptroller is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent or not you say?

"If you really did do it but the cops can't prove it..."

But the cops are qualified for some reason? Oh, let's be fair though, I cut your sentence off...

"...or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned..."

This may be the one iota of sense you have in your whole post. Yes, it pissed me off that obvious criminals walk free on technicalities, such as how the police gather evidence and such. But these laws are in place to protect our freedoms, and it protects innocent people and guilty people alike unfortunately. So your state has made a law that screws over the innocents so you can "stick it" to the guilty ones, GOOD JOB TEXAS~! (that was sarcasm, just in case you missed it)

/BTW, Alaska is bigger.
//Suck it.
 
2011-05-05 12:01:00 AM  
We have another interesting situation in Texas regarding this innocent prisoner compensation law ...

If you are out of the penitentiary on parole for burglary, and a burglar strikes in your neighborhood, the cops will want to hear your alibi. If you say "fark you pigs" they might decide it was you. Rather than proving the new burglary in a trial they ask for a parole revocation. At trial they would need proof beyond a reasonable doubt but for a parole revocation they only need a preponderance of the evidence... That means they only need to prove it was more likely than not that you violated parole.

Boom, your parole is revoked for a crime you didn't do. Even if you are later exonerated of the second burglary you don't get paid because you were technically completing the sentence on the FIRST burglary which you did do, not the second one you didn't. Prisoners don't have any "right" to parole, it is a privilege. The state revoked the privilege based on bad evidence but you don't get paid because technically you didn't DESERVE to be out of prison anyhow.
 
2011-05-05 12:01:28 AM  

tomerson: Farkin Texas. SucceedSecede from the union already. Good riddance.


I don't want them to secede. You don't kick out the stupid kid. Because someone else becomes the stupid kid. That's just how it works.

/but then again, we already have Florida.
 
2011-05-05 12:01:49 AM  

Schlock: jadedlee: Actual innocence is a post-conviction finding overturning a wrongful conviction. Think of it this way, at the first trial you're innocent until proven guilty - therefore guilty or not guilty. After conviction you're guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof shifts from state to defense.

Alright, now I get you. But then how do you have a conviction overturned without the person being considered innocent by default, as in this case? The fact that it was overturned should mean de facto innocence, regardless of how it was worded on the paperwork


I fail at refreshing before posting. Sorry for the repeat there.

The appeals process is extremely messy and really depends on what the grounds are for an appeal. You can challenge convictions based on things like racial makeup of the jury (although not really anymore, thanks SCOTUS), prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations (meaning not all of the exculpatory evidence was given to the defense and therefore they were not able to make a comprehensive case), you can challenge whether the law you were convicted of violating is even legal in the first place (see Lawrence v. Texas where the conviction was on a law that was ruled unconstitutional). There are possibilities for having evidence ditched in appeals, like having a confession ruled inadmissible because of a Miranda violation the original trial did not account for, etc. The list goes on, it also depends on what was presented at the original trial, what the state law is and what the court will allow. None of those situations involve a claim of actual innocence, except possibly the Brady violations, but in most cases the information sought would have created doubt in the original trial, meaning not guilty.
 
nm
2011-05-05 12:03:28 AM  

Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.

Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.
 
2011-05-05 12:05:27 AM  
In a totally unexpected turn of events, the state of Texas decides against the black guy.

/This is not a repeat from every year in the past century.
 
2011-05-05 12:05:35 AM  

Silent But Deadly: TheWhoppah: mongbiohazard: Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did?

The statute of limitations would prevent his conviction even if you could get past prosecutorial immunity.

So it's OK to falsely imprison someone with false evidence, and hide away (using state resources to do so) and evade justice, but it is OK to put an innocent person away for 18 years? You are really full of derp. People like you really scare me. yeeesh.



I didn't write the farking statute of limitations. I'm telling you what the law is. If you don't like it write your farking congressman, don't say I'm "full of derp" just for explaining facts that you don't like. dumbass.
 
2011-05-05 12:07:52 AM  

jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...


Naw, she's following what the law says. The law is screwed up. Fortunately since it's on Perry's radar (amazingly), it'll get corrected and this poor man will, eventually, get paid.
 
2011-05-05 12:09:18 AM  

nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.


really? all he had to do was check the statute for the language needed to make sure he got paid by the state. the prosecutor and judge had already agreed that he was ACTUALLY INNOCENT and he was going home.
 
2011-05-05 12:09:55 AM  

TheWhoppah: Silent But Deadly: TheWhoppah: mongbiohazard: Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did?

The statute of limitations would prevent his conviction even if you could get past prosecutorial immunity.

So it's OK to falsely imprison someone with false evidence, and hide away (using state resources to do so) and evade justice, but it is OK to put an innocent person away for 18 years? You are really full of derp. People like you really scare me. yeeesh.


I didn't write the farking statute of limitations. I'm telling you what the law is. If you don't like it write your farking congressman, don't say I'm "full of derp" just for explaining facts that you don't like. dumbass.


that';s, like, your opinion man!
 
2011-05-05 12:10:44 AM  
[SRSLY?.jpg]
 
2011-05-05 12:11:07 AM  

lightrunner: Hmm...


I guess, if she insisted . . .
 
2011-05-05 12:12:08 AM  

sip111: jadedlee: sip111: jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...

Rick Perry doesn't know what morality is, he thinks that normative ethics is something that involves list making and Santa Clause. The man is retarded, and is reelected simply because he has nice hair and is a republican. The highest point in his life so far was shooting some wolfs with is handgun while jogging. Also there's a little known state tenet that holds, any one qualified to be Governor of Texas should never, under any circumstances, be aloud to do the job. Zaphod Beeblebrox was Governor before Bush Jr.

Um, I'm pretty sure we're of the same opinion on Rick Perry. Maybe you just missed this in the article? "Despite criticism from Gov. Rick Perry - and pretty much everyone else - the comptroller has stood by this decision, which has prompted a lawsuit."

My point was Rick Perry, who barely qualifies as a human being, can see that this is an injustice. That makes this comptroller less human than Rick Perry, which is almost an accomplishment.

*Rereads, dammit, puts down beer.* Very true. The comptrollers in Texas are also historically incompetent, uncultured-and proud of it-dontcha' know (they see Mexico from their houses in Austin), baboons. The one before her, who could at least count higher than Ricky, that is all the way to ham, tried to tell people what were and weren't "real" religionsTM, and went about revoking tax exempt status from those she deemed "not real religions."

Seriously, you can't make this sort of stuff up.


You mean the one who went after Unitarians? Because I could sort of forgive going after Scientology, but don't mess with the Unitarians.

(And if you're drinking dumb beer you have an excuse for almost anything. I'm currently on Magic Hat Demo because I'm saving the Vinyl for later. Vinyl is awesome. No, I have no good excuses.)
 
2011-05-05 12:14:55 AM  

nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.


Yeah, everything you posted is why I called this an "admittedly bad suggestion." I was trying to offer some sort of insight into why someone might think that is the case.

I also think the Defense did a great job by getting this guy off, and don't deserve to be sued. Thanks for the insight from someone who actually knows what they are talking about, not just me and the other internet lawyers.
 
2011-05-05 12:15:44 AM  

Baron-Harkonnen: Have you guys ever coughed up a chunky, white piece of...something...that smelled like the pure essence of bad breath in solid form?


A gastrolith, formed from food particles that get caught in your tonsil folds and covered with bacteria, dead white blood cells, saliva and more food particles. farking annoying things, especially when they form a deep pocket inside your tonsil and you have to dig them out. When they're big enough to rub against your tongue or the membrane that's in front of the tonsil... augh.
 
2011-05-05 12:16:37 AM  
God damn farking bastards. This is just sanctioned criminality. fark THEM ALL!!!
 
2011-05-05 12:16:55 AM  
None of you freaks cussing the Texas justice system live in a state with enough balls to pass a death penalty law for second offense aggrevated sexual assault of a child. You all live in states that coddle perverts who rape children.

The only other state with the decency to try was Louisiana... and I know nobody from Louisiana is dissin on Texas justice. Damn US Supreme Court struck it down but we'll try again in a few years and cite "evolving standards of decency" as justification for expanding the death penalty beyond murderers. Eventually they'll agree. Just wait.
 
2011-05-05 12:17:16 AM  

relcec: nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.

really? all he had to do was check the statute for the language needed to make sure he got paid by the state. the prosecutor and judge had already agreed that he was ACTUALLY INNOCENT and he was going home.


Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get someone off death row? In Texas, no less? I'm sure you could do it by taking out books from the library and checking statutes. Yeah, his defense team, they were so incompetent because their foremost concern was getting the guy exonerated. What a bunch of greedy dirtbags for just saving his life.
 
2011-05-05 12:17:33 AM  
how much effort does it take for the lawyer to check the statute to find out what language is needed so his client gets paid for his 18 years of of being locked up on death row?
he doesn't even have to get off his ass to get a book.
it takes him 4 minutes of searching of lexis.
the insurance company won't even want to go to trial.
 
2011-05-05 12:18:49 AM  

nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.


Actually, your second post gives more credibility to the lawsuit suggestion, which is still bad. Just taking this off the top of my head, but if this were a court appointed attorney, it could be remotely argued that the attorney was pressured to leave out language that would result in the court having to pay this guy $1.4 million.

Not saying they did, but I don't see that really being far off in an argument.

Of course, I have no understanding of the oversight and independence a defense attorney receives from the government. I only know from personal experience that my court appointed defense lawyer was really buddy-buddy with the prosecutor, and it could have been a you scratch my back I'll scratch yours type of informal agreement for the defense not to push for the appropriate wording.

Really a stretch, I know.
 
2011-05-05 12:19:38 AM  
" [...] There is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you're innocent." - Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States
 
2011-05-05 12:20:15 AM  
*second point, not second point.

Again, I think his defense did a great job. I'm just trying to brainstorm stupid ideas for a lawsuit, and I'm pretty sure there have been a lot stupider lawsuits filed. And subsequently thrown out for being stupid, but still.
 
2011-05-05 12:20:43 AM  

sip111: jadedlee: sip111: jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...

Rick Perry doesn't know what morality is, he thinks that normative ethics is something that involves list making and Santa Clause. The man is retarded, and is reelected simply because he has nice hair and is a republican. The highest point in his life so far was shooting some wolfs with is handgun while jogging. Also there's a little known state tenet that holds, any one qualified to be Governor of Texas should never, under any circumstances, be aloud to do the job. Zaphod Beeblebrox was Governor before Bush Jr.

Um, I'm pretty sure we're of the same opinion on Rick Perry. Maybe you just missed this in the article? "Despite criticism from Gov. Rick Perry - and pretty much everyone else - the comptroller has stood by this decision, which has prompted a lawsuit."

My point was Rick Perry, who barely qualifies as a human being, can see that this is an injustice. That makes this comptroller less human than Rick Perry, which is almost an accomplishment.

*Rereads, dammit, puts down beer.* Very true. The comptrollers in Texas are also historically incompetent, uncultured-and proud of it-dontcha' know (they see Mexico from their houses in Austin), baboons. The one before her, who could at least count higher than Ricky, that is all the way to ham, tried to tell people what were and weren't "real" religionsTM, and went about revoking tax exempt status from those she deemed "not real religions."

Seriously, you can't make this sort of stuff up.


eh, the comptroller is an elected figurehead.

But, having dealt with plenty of government accounting offices, I can safely say the worst people in the world are bureaucrat accountants. There is no better way to exact your passive-aggressive revenge on the world than to delay signing a check for weeks because of a single vague word in some policy written decades ago. Or in the case of tax collectors, harass people for not paying enough in a similar fashion.

Are you bitter? Have an eye for details and creative interpretation? Want to lord over others even though you have no real authority? Your government and/or large corporate accounting office wants you ! Delay those payments and rake in the interest on that float!
 
2011-05-05 12:20:54 AM  

TheWhoppah: " [...] There is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you're innocent." - Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States


Can we execute Scalia in that case?
 
2011-05-05 12:21:35 AM  

TheWhoppah: None of you freaks cussing the Texas justice system live in a state with enough balls to pass a death penalty law for second offense aggrevated sexual assault of a child. You all live in states that coddle perverts who rape children.

The only other state with the decency to try was Louisiana... and I know nobody from Louisiana is dissin on Texas justice. Damn US Supreme Court struck it down but we'll try again in a few years and cite "evolving standards of decency" as justification for expanding the death penalty beyond murderers. Eventually they'll agree. Just wait.


While we applaud you for that particular point, all of your other problems and fark-ups massively overshadow it. So we're justified in pointing at you and laughing/crying/shaking our heads/wondering what the hell is wrong with you.

As far as "coddling" child rapists goes, they rarely last long in prison anyway. Even Evil Has Standards.
 
2011-05-05 12:23:14 AM  

nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.


The special prosecutor said she'd testify to his innocence. Not sure where that's from though, but looking.
 
2011-05-05 12:25:33 AM  

relcec: how much effort does it take for the lawyer to check the statute to find out what language is needed so his client gets paid for his 18 years of of being locked up on death row?


Despite the impression you get from Fark.com, innocent people coming off death row is not an everyday occurrence in any jurisdiction. It is covered heavily in the news because it is a man-bites-dog sort of event. Your attorney can't just buy a book of legal forms that include all the correct wording and citations for the occasion.
 
2011-05-05 12:25:39 AM  
Wow, when even Rick Perry thinks this is bullshiat, it's definitely bullshiat.
 
2011-05-05 12:25:45 AM  

jadedlee: relcec: nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.

really? all he had to do was check the statute for the language needed to make sure he got paid by the state. the prosecutor and judge had already agreed that he was ACTUALLY INNOCENT and he was going home.

Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get someone off death row? In Texas, no less? I'm sure you could do it by taking out books from the library and checking statutes. Yeah, his defense team, they were so incompetent because their foremost concern was getting the guy exonerated. What a bunch of greedy dirtbags for just saving his life.


doesn't matter. he had a duty to represent effectively all the way through, not stop working once he got the real killer to admit his guilt.
more importantly this is the heartbreak story of the century. a jury would want to see this man get paid, and a deep pocketed mal practice insurance company would be perfect. from the insurance companies view point it's better to just pay the man then pay the man now than pay the man and pay a bunch of lawyers later.
 
2011-05-05 12:28:07 AM  

jadedlee: Schlock: jadedlee: Actual innocence is a post-conviction finding overturning a wrongful conviction. Think of it this way, at the first trial you're innocent until proven guilty - therefore guilty or not guilty. After conviction you're guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof shifts from state to defense.

Alright, now I get you. But then how do you have a conviction overturned without the person being considered innocent by default, as in this case? The fact that it was overturned should mean de facto innocence, regardless of how it was worded on the paperwork

I fail at refreshing before posting. Sorry for the repeat there.

The appeals process is extremely messy and really depends on what the grounds are for an appeal. You can challenge convictions based on things like racial makeup of the jury (although not really anymore, thanks SCOTUS), prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations (meaning not all of the exculpatory evidence was given to the defense and therefore they were not able to make a comprehensive case), you can challenge whether the law you were convicted of violating is even legal in the first place (see Lawrence v. Texas where the conviction was on a law that was ruled unconstitutional). There are possibilities for having evidence ditched in appeals, like having a confession ruled inadmissible because of a Miranda violation the original trial did not account for, etc. The list goes on, it also depends on what was presented at the original trial, what the state law is and what the court will allow. None of those situations involve a claim of actual innocence, except possibly the Brady violations, but in most cases the information sought would have created doubt in the original trial, meaning not guilty.


Thanks for that
 
2011-05-05 12:28:46 AM  

Fett56: TheWhoppah: " [...] There is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you're innocent." - Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States

Can we execute Scalia in that case?



Fine by me as long as you do it while Obama will be the one appointing his successor.
 
2011-05-05 12:30:50 AM  

ArkAngel: Holy shiat. In one thread we're gonna have arguments on the death penalty, prosecutorial misconduct, faceless government, Texas, Rick Perry, and child support systems. And I'm sure someone will throw in a hot chick threadjack at some point.

This will be one to watch.


What if I just threw in a curveball and talked about how the wildfires was karma for Texas?
 
2011-05-05 12:31:11 AM  

colslax: Casey: It's a vicious circle.
Dan: It is.
Casey: It's a neverending circle.
Dan: Just keeps going round and round.
Casey: Never ends.
Dan: That's what makes it vicious.
Casey: And a circle.


every thread should have some Dan & Casey banter.

/we're just getting started here on Dan & Casey's Dance Fever
 
2011-05-05 12:31:18 AM  
It looks like most of the work on this case was done by journalism students under the supervision of a professor/lawyer working with the Innocence Project. Link (new window)
 
2011-05-05 12:32:25 AM  

TheWhoppah: relcec: how much effort does it take for the lawyer to check the statute to find out what language is needed so his client gets paid for his 18 years of of being locked up on death row?

Despite the impression you get from Fark.com, innocent people coming off death row is not an everyday occurrence in any jurisdiction. It is covered heavily in the news because it is a man-bites-dog sort of event. Your attorney can't just buy a book of legal forms that include all the correct wording and citations for the occasion.



we have these things called databases now. they include things like called government statutes and even published and non published cases. you can even do searches of these databases. I know amazing times we live in.

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code - Section 103.051. Application Procedure

Legal Research Home > Texas Laws > Civil Practice & Remedies Code > Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code - Section 103.051. Application Procedure

§ 103.051. APPLICATION PROCEDURE. (a) To apply for compensation under this subchapter, the claimant must file with the comptroller's judiciary section: (1) an application for compensation provided for that purpose by the comptroller; (2) a verified copy of the pardon or court order justifying the application for compensation; (3) a statement provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice verifying the length of incarceration; and (4) a certification of the claimant's actual innocence of the crime for which the claimant was sentenced that is signed by the attorney representing the state in the prosecution of felonies in the county in which the sentence was rendered. (b) The comptroller shall determine: (1) the eligibility of the claimant; and (2) the amount of compensation owed to an eligible claimant. (c) The comptroller must make a determination of eligibility and the amount owed as required by Subsection (b) not later than the 45th day after the date the application is received. (d) If the comptroller denies the claim, the comptroller must state the reason for the denial. Not later than the 10th day after the date the denial is received, the claimant must submit an application to cure any problem identified. Not later than the 45th day after the date an application is received under this subsection, the comptroller shall determine the claimant's eligibility and the amount owed. (e) If the comptroller denies a claim after the claimant submits an application under Subsection (d), the claimant may bring an action for mandamus relief. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1488, § 1, eff. June 15, 2001. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1310, § 1, eff. June 20, 2003.
 
2011-05-05 12:35:40 AM  

relcec: jadedlee: relcec: nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.

really? all he had to do was check the statute for the language needed to make sure he got paid by the state. the prosecutor and judge had already agreed that he was ACTUALLY INNOCENT and he was going home.

Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get someone off death row? In Texas, no less? I'm sure you could do it by taking out books from the library and checking statutes. Yeah, his defense team, they were so incompetent because their foremost concern was getting the guy exonerated. What a bunch of greedy dirtbags for just saving his life.

doesn't matter. he had a duty to represent effectively all the way through, not stop working once he got the real killer to admit his guilt.
more importantly this is the heartbreak story of the century. a jury would want to see this man get paid, and a deep pocketed mal practice insurance company would be perfect. from the insurance companies view point it's better to just pay the man then pay the man now than pay the man and pay a bunch of lawyers later.


I think every reasonable person with an ounce of compassion wants to see this man get paid, but you're looking in the wrong place. Like I just posted, the bulk of the work on this case was done by journalism students on behalf of the Innocence Project. Yes, you'll have a lawyer who headed that team and could be liable, but what are you thinking? Let's bankrupt the organization that helps innocent people for free so that they can't help anyone else! Something something good deeds unpunished.
 
2011-05-05 12:36:01 AM  

relcec: doesn't matter. he had a duty to represent effectively all the way through, not stop working once he got the real killer to admit his guilt.



Wrong. The criminal defense attorney must give effective representation with regard to criminal liability only. The collection of this compensatory payment is a separate civil matter.

Imagine a situation where a drunk driver ran over and killed a child. The state prosecutes the driver in criminal court for felony intoxication manslaughter and the parents sue him in civil court. His criminal attorney works out a plea deal and the guy pleads guilty to misdemeanor reckless driving. This pretty much farks him for the purposes of the civil case but it isnt the criminal defense attorney's fault. That criminal defense attorney did a good job getting a misdemeanor reduction on a case the jury would have sent him to the pen. The civil defense is really screwed now that he admitted to reckless driving but thats not the criminal defense attorney's fault.
 
2011-05-05 12:36:26 AM  

Schlock: jadedleeI fail at refreshing before posting. Sorry for the repeat there.

The appeals process is extremely messy and really depends on what the grounds are for an appeal. You can challenge convictions based on things like racial makeup of the jury (although not really anymore, thanks SCOTUS), prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations (meaning not all of the exculpatory evidence was given to the defense and therefore they were not able to make a comprehensive case), you can challenge whether the law you were convicted of violating is even legal in the first place (see Lawrence v. Texas where the conviction was on a law that was ruled unconstitutional). There are possibilities for having evidence ditched in appeals, like having a confession ruled inadmissible because of a Miranda violation the original trial did not account for, etc. The list goes on, it also depends on what was presented at the original trial, what the state law is and what the court will allow. None of those situations involve a claim of actual innocence, except possibly the Brady violations, but in most cases the information sought would have created doubt in the original trial, meaning not guilty.

Thanks for that


To expand on that, it didn't occur to me that post-conviction judgements would be any different than those in the initial trial, and you cleared it up nicely. It's still kind of messed up that you can be found not guilty and not have that equate with innocence, but I can sort of see why it is the way it is.
 
2011-05-05 12:41:26 AM  

relcec: TheWhoppah: relcec: how much effort does it take for the lawyer to check the statute to find out what language is needed so his client gets paid for his 18 years of of being locked up on death row?

Despite the impression you get from Fark.com, innocent people coming off death row is not an everyday occurrence in any jurisdiction. It is covered heavily in the news because it is a man-bites-dog sort of event. Your attorney can't just buy a book of legal forms that include all the correct wording and citations for the occasion.


we have these things called databases now. they include things like called government statutes and even published and non published cases. you can even do searches of these databases. I know amazing times we live in.

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code - Section 103.051. Application Procedure

Legal Research Home > Texas Laws > Civil Practice & Remedies Code > Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code - Section 103.051. Application Procedure

§ 103.051. APPLICATION PROCEDURE. (a) To apply for compensation under this subchapter, the claimant must file with the comptroller's judiciary section: (1) an application for compensation provided for that purpose by the comptroller; (2) a verified copy of the pardon or court order justifying the application for compensation; (3) a statement provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice verifying the length of incarceration; and (4) a certification of the claimant's actual innocence of the crime for which the claimant was sentenced that is signed by the attorney representing the state in the prosecution of felonies in the county in which the sentence was rendered. (b) The comptroller shall determine: (1) the eligibility of the claimant; and (2) the amount of compensation owed to an eligible claimant. (c) The comptroller must make a determination of eligibility and the amount owed as required by Subsection (b) not later than the 45th day after the date the application is received. (d) If the comptroller denies the claim, the comptroller must state the reason for the denial. Not later than the 10th day after the date the denial is received, the claimant must submit an application to cure any problem identified. Not later than the 45th day after the date an application is received under this subsection, the comptroller shall determine the claimant's eligibility and the amount owed. (e) If the comptroller denies a claim after the claimant submits an application under Subsection (d), the claimant may bring an action for mandamus relief. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1488, § 1, eff. June 15, 2001. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1310, § 1, eff. June 20, 2003.


Headline: Journalism students successfully exonerate innocent man; save him from execution and 18 years on death row

Fark whiners: Why didn't the journalism students know the intricacies of the Texas criminal compensation law that we only know to even look for because it's being reported on??!?!

Next time you save someone from death row and get them a bazillion dollars in compensation from Texas, make sure to cut out the newspaper clipping and put it on your fridge.
 
2011-05-05 12:42:04 AM  
I guess what I find depressing about all of this is that at this point, we expect court appointed lawyers to suck hard.
 
2011-05-05 12:43:13 AM  

relcec: [...] Civil Practice & Remedies Code [...]


Do you realize that its unlikely any full-time criminal defense attorneys have even looked at the civil practice & remedies code since law school? You might as well be asking a software engineer to balance organic chemistry equations. Yeah maybe they did it for one semester back in school but good luck with relying on their answer.
 
2011-05-05 12:43:54 AM  
I opened the story just to see if the guy was black.

SURPRISE!!!!

lol texas....
 
2011-05-05 12:44:05 AM  

jadedlee: relcec: jadedlee: relcec: nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.

really? all he had to do was check the statute for the language needed to make sure he got paid by the state. the prosecutor and judge had already agreed that he was ACTUALLY INNOCENT and he was going home.

Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get someone off death row? In Texas, no less? I'm sure you could do it by taking out books from the library and checking statutes. Yeah, his defense team, they were so incompetent because their foremost concern was getting the guy exonerated. What a bunch of greedy dirtbags for just saving his life.

doesn't matter. he had a duty to represent effectively all the way through, not stop working once he got the real killer to admit his guilt.
more importantly this is the heartbreak story of the century. a jury would want to see this man get paid, and a deep pocketed mal practice insurance company would be perfect. from the insurance companies view point it's better to just pay the man then pay the man now than pay the man and pay a bunch of lawyers later.

I think every reasonable person with an ounce of compassion wants to see this man get paid, but you're looking in the wrong place. Like I just posted, the bulk of the work on this case was done by journalism students on behalf of the Innocence Project. Yes, you'll have a lawyer who headed that team and could be liable, but what are you thinking? Let's bankrupt the organization that helps innocent people for free so that they can't help anyone else! Something something good deeds unpunished.


that's why the victim in this case won't do it.
he's apparently just happy to be alive.
 
2011-05-05 12:46:18 AM  

TheWhoppah: You all live in states that coddle perverts who rape children.


says the moron who thinks death is a worse fate then decades in general population and known as a kiddy fiddler.
 
2011-05-05 12:46:28 AM  

jst3p: Hrist: There are three levels of guilt. Guilty, not guilty due to lack of evidence, and not guilty. Not guilty due to lack of evidence means that you're still guilty but that they couldn't meet the minimum standards for guilt for a crime.

Huh? Some people are found not guilty due to lack of evidence and that is the same as being found guilty?

I am going to need some more information here.


That's what I'm gathering from this story, yeah. Instead of saying, "Sorry, we imprisoned you for almost twenty years off of flimsy evidence that was made up by one person with no witnesses. Here's a shiat ton of money, hope this helps to make things right." they're saying, "We know you're guilty, so you're lucky you're getting out. You better learn to pay your OTHER dues to society, boy, or you'll be right back in here in a week! Just because the fancy schmancy legal system says we can't keep you doesn't mean you didn't do it! You're still guilty, we just can't prove it!"
 
2011-05-05 12:48:25 AM  

Hrist: jst3p: Hrist: There are three levels of guilt. Guilty, not guilty due to lack of evidence, and not guilty. Not guilty due to lack of evidence means that you're still guilty but that they couldn't meet the minimum standards for guilt for a crime.

Huh? Some people are found not guilty due to lack of evidence and that is the same as being found guilty?

I am going to need some more information here.

That's what I'm gathering from this story, yeah. Instead of saying, "Sorry, we imprisoned you for almost twenty years off of flimsy evidence that was made up by one person with no witnesses. Here's a shiat ton of money, hope this helps to make things right." they're saying, "We know you're guilty, so you're lucky you're getting out. You better learn to pay your OTHER dues to society, boy, or you'll be right back in here in a week! Just because the fancy schmancy legal system says we can't keep you doesn't mean you didn't do it! You're still guilty, we just can't prove it!"


Oh, so your "there are three levels of guilt" was just pulled out of your ass.

Gotcha.
 
2011-05-05 12:48:27 AM  

jadedlee: the best options are probably malicious prosecution (which this case probably doesn't fit), or abuse of process.


the best option would be action under section 30-06
 
2011-05-05 12:51:07 AM  

TheWhoppah: relcec: [...] Civil Practice & Remedies Code [...]

Do you realize that its unlikely any full-time criminal defense attorneys have even looked at the civil practice & remedies code since law school? You might as well be asking a software engineer to balance organic chemistry equations. Yeah maybe they did it for one semester back in school but good luck with relying on their answer.


wtf?
you don't even look at crap in law school.
you only look at it when you look it up when you have exonerated someone in a case and you need to make sure you can get your client paid. that's the farking point.
you don't memorize all the law in the world preparing for the day you may sometime need use it, silly. you learn how to find it, think about it, argue about, write about it, and apply it.
 
2011-05-05 12:55:29 AM  
Maybe the part of all this you don't understand is that, unlike what you see on television, plain old "I'm innocent" is NOT grounds for an appeal.

Even "I'm innocent and I have evidence to prove it" is not grounds for an appeal.

For an appeal, somebody had to fark up somewhere. It could have been the police, the judge, the prosecutor, the defense attorney or a witness.

So, when a conviction is overturned on appeal, the default position is that it was overturned because of SOME sort of farkup. If you want to have it on the record that you were actually innocent that requires an explicit finding by the courts because it is not the normal or default position.

Without the explicit finding of innocence the Comptroller is limitted in what she can do, even if she knows right from wrong.
 
2011-05-05 12:55:29 AM  
"former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta" Who fabricated evidence in an attempt to send a man to the gas chamber.
So, this Sebesta guy is on trial for attempted murder, right?
If not, he should be. When prosecutors lose their "above the law" status, states like Texas will slow down the number of innocent people they kill, cut down on the number of exonerated men owed millions of dollars.
 
2011-05-05 12:56:20 AM  

Schlock: Schlock: jadedleeI fail at refreshing before posting. Sorry for the repeat there.

The appeals process is extremely messy and really depends on what the grounds are for an appeal. You can challenge convictions based on things like racial makeup of the jury (although not really anymore, thanks SCOTUS), prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations (meaning not all of the exculpatory evidence was given to the defense and therefore they were not able to make a comprehensive case), you can challenge whether the law you were convicted of violating is even legal in the first place (see Lawrence v. Texas where the conviction was on a law that was ruled unconstitutional). There are possibilities for having evidence ditched in appeals, like having a confession ruled inadmissible because of a Miranda violation the original trial did not account for, etc. The list goes on, it also depends on what was presented at the original trial, what the state law is and what the court will allow. None of those situations involve a claim of actual innocence, except possibly the Brady violations, but in most cases the information sought would have created doubt in the original trial, meaning not guilty.

Thanks for that

To expand on that, it didn't occur to me that post-conviction judgements would be any different than those in the initial trial, and you cleared it up nicely. It's still kind of messed up that you can be found not guilty and not have that equate with innocence, but I can sort of see why it is the way it is.


Oh the justice system is basically one big brain fark that's almost impenetrable to logic. I actually didn't do a very good job summarizing that stuff (blame the Magic Hat, ok?) but it should give you some idea of what a few possibilities are. There's also the difference between the appeal of a state conviction within the state system, or of a state conviction to the federal system, then there is the general idea that the jury in the original trial was the infallible arbiter of fact and anything presented cannot be reassessed by any other court. Appeals are to decide whether something systemic went wrong, not whether the conviction was right or not. That's where you get the Scalia quote: "This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeus court that he is 'actually' innocent." (Thankfully, it was written in a dissent and the majority ordered a review of the relevant murder conviction.) The point is appeals are much more about process and much less about facts. Scalia says if you ran out of process he doesn't give a fark whether you can prove you didn't do it because he's already got his execution celebratory cigar prepped, and a cigar delayed is a cigar denied or something.
 
2011-05-05 12:59:04 AM  
You can coulda, shoulda, woulda all day long but a criminal defense attorney has no business in the Civil Practices and Remedies Code.

Damned dentist didn't notice my infected toe! WTF a dentist is a doctor! Sue the bastard!
 
2011-05-05 12:59:50 AM  

Fett56: 1-phenylpropan-2-amine: $1.4m - $5k. Problem?

Yes. He owes the $5k for being in prison due to false charges. If he hadn't been in prison, he wouldn't not have incurred the $5k debt. Therefore the prosecutor should have to pay the $5k. And then be whipped.


No. The debt is because he was a parent. Had he not been in jail he would have earned the money and paid it at the time.

Since part of that $80k/yr is to make up for lost wages the $5k should come from it.
 
2011-05-05 01:01:30 AM  

relcec: jadedlee: relcec: jadedlee: relcec: nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.

really? all he had to do was check the statute for the language needed to make sure he got paid by the state. the prosecutor and judge had already agreed that he was ACTUALLY INNOCENT and he was going home.

Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get someone off death row? In Texas, no less? I'm sure you could do it by taking out books from the library and checking statutes. Yeah, his defense team, they were so incompetent because their foremost concern was getting the guy exonerated. What a bunch of greedy dirtbags for just saving his life.

doesn't matter. he had a duty to represent effectively all the way through, not stop working once he got the real killer to admit his guilt.
more importantly this is the heartbreak story of the century. a jury would want to see this man get paid, and a deep pocketed mal practice insurance company would be perfect. from the insurance companies view point it's better to just pay the man then pay the man now than pay the man and pay a bunch of lawyers later.

I think every reasonable person with an ounce of compassion wants to see this man get paid, but you're looking in the wrong place. Like I just posted, the bulk of the work on this case was done by journalism students on behalf of the Innocence Project. Yes, you'll have a lawyer who headed that team and could be liable, but what are you thinking? Let's bankrupt the organization that helps innocent people for free so that they can't help anyone else! Something something good deeds unpunished.

that's why the victim in this case won't do it.
he's apparently just happy to be alive.


What I just read suggests he's working with a civil firm to challenge the idiot comptroller, or possibly the narrow wording of the statute when the circumstance clearly fits legislative intent behind the fund, who knows. That's both his best bet for getting more money and probably the only moral option he'd be willing to take. The courts are supposed to interpret laws, including assessing intent, so it's likely the right approach.
 
2011-05-05 01:02:49 AM  

TheWhoppah: The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


i1125.photobucket.com

/NTTAWWT
//Texas: foreign country, foreign laws.
 
2011-05-05 01:06:13 AM  

Lehk: section 30-06


Umm... Trespass by holder of license to carry concealed handgun? Like I said, I don't know Texas law at all, but still...
 
2011-05-05 01:06:18 AM  

Loren: Fett


Ok, good point. Got me there.
 
2011-05-05 01:09:19 AM  
This is the kind of thing that makes me cheer on wildfires.
 
2011-05-05 01:09:49 AM  
A thirty aught six is a rifle.

He was suggesting killing the DA for revenge. Funny how these out-of-state farkwits get all holier than though about Texas justice shortfalls and then suggest assination as a solution.
 
2011-05-05 01:10:51 AM  

Baron-Harkonnen: Have you guys ever coughed up a chunky, white piece of...something...that smelled like the pure essence of bad breath in solid form?


I believe thats called a tonsil stone.
 
2011-05-05 01:11:53 AM  
haha mavs win again. suck it lakers
 
2011-05-05 01:16:34 AM  

jadedlee: relcec: jadedlee: relcec: jadedlee: relcec: nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.

really? all he had to do was check the statute for the language needed to make sure he got paid by the state. the prosecutor and judge had already agreed that he was ACTUALLY INNOCENT and he was going home.

Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get someone off death row? In Texas, no less? I'm sure you could do it by taking out books from the library and checking statutes. Yeah, his defense team, they were so incompetent because their foremost concern was getting the guy exonerated. What a bunch of greedy dirtbags for just saving his life.

doesn't matter. he had a duty to represent effectively all the way through, not stop working once he got the real killer to admit his guilt.
more importantly this is the heartbreak story of the century. a jury would want to see this man get paid, and a deep pocketed mal practice insurance company would be perfect. from the insurance companies view point it's better to just pay the man then pay the man now than pay the man and pay a bunch of lawyers later.

I think every reasonable person with an ounce of compassion wants to see this man get paid, but you're looking in the wrong place. Like I just posted, the bulk of the work on this case was done by journalism students on behalf of the Innocence Project. Yes, you'll have a lawyer who headed that team and could be liable, but what are you thinking? Let's bankrupt the organization that helps innocent people for free so that they can't help anyone else! Something something good deeds unpunished.

that's why the victim in this case won't do it.
he's apparently just happy to be alive.

What I just read suggests he's working with a civil firm to challenge the idiot comptroller, or possibly the narrow wording of the statute when the circumstance clearly fits legislative intent behind the fund, who knows. That's both his best bet for getting more money and probably the only moral option he'd be willing to take. The courts are supposed to interpret laws, including assessing intent, so it's likely the right approach.


I'm not entirely sure the comptroller or law is at fault here. have you seen what the actual court documents say? the law requires "a certification of the claimant's actual innocence of the crime for which the claimant was sentenced" that doesn't seem way out there to me.
but yes, how can you go after the guy who saved your life because he cost you money? even if that's what mal practice insurance for. unless the guy begged you to do it, how could you?
 
2011-05-05 01:16:55 AM  
Time for 'true story bro'.

When I got divorced in the grand state of Maryland...you had to go through the court system for child payment (PG County).

I would send my check on the 1st of the month to the county, but she wouldn't receive payment until last of the month.

She was...what's up with that and so I took her by hand and we went and I sent a certified mail on the first.

Again she got it on the 26th or so.

And that was the last time we went through them, but it was all on her to call them and withdraw from the program.

Oh and they warned her...that she couldn't come back etc.


End result is I gave her six months of checks, she cashed one on the first every month.


The also pulled us into court without reason trying to up my child support payment to which my wife told the judge...I don't understand why we are here...I never asked for this, I'm fine with what I am being paid...her child enforcement person sitting right next to her was trying to object...and the judge said...I see no problem here...case dismissed.

Government workers :(
 
2011-05-05 01:19:28 AM  
actually, I couldn't do it even if he begged me I don't think.
 
2011-05-05 01:20:30 AM  

TheWhoppah: A thirty aught six is a rifle.

He was suggesting killing the DA for revenge. Funny how these out-of-state farkwits get all holier than though about Texas justice shortfalls and then suggest assination as a solution.


Funny it ends up being a gun statute too. There really has to be a legal way to go after the original prosecutor, but I don't know what it is. I'm wondering if suborning perjury would work. As long as the statute of limitations hasn't expired, it's a halfway decent option. It carries potential jail time and would definitely involve sanctions, probably disbarment or at the very least suspension.
 
2011-05-05 01:24:07 AM  
Having just watched The Thin Blue Line last week it's nice to see Texas is still the same old hell on earth it was back then.
 
2011-05-05 01:28:54 AM  
No dice. Limitations is 3 years on most felonies. There are exceptions but the only way you get over 10 years is sexual assault of a child which is, if I remember correctly, 10 years from the 18th birthday ... or murder which has no limit.
 
2011-05-05 01:32:51 AM  

Fett56: Seriously, what is wrong with us? How did we become this farking broken?


i52.tinypic.com
 
2011-05-05 01:35:32 AM  

relcec: I'm not entirely sure the comptroller or law is at fault here. have you seen what the actual court documents say? the law requires "a certification of the claimant's actual innocence of the crime for which the claimant was sentenced" that doesn't seem way out there to me.
but yes, how can you go after the guy who saved your life because he cost you mon ...


You couldn't anyway; as has been mentioned here, the defense appeals team is not responsible for making sure he's compensated. They take on the responsibility of giving him the best representation possible for the purposes of appealing his death penalty conviction, not for anything that comes after that.

I am blaming the comptroller, she's an idiot and it's not like she can go around claiming she did her job considering she missed the original response deadline and only came up with one after further investigation by his lawyers.

"Kelly Siegler, the special prosecutor who recommended dropping the charges against Graves, said that the words "actual innocence" are not commonly used in the courtroom. She said the compensation law likely was designed for cases involving innocence proven through DNA, not a case thrown out by prosecutors after a reexamination of the evidence.

"Who would have envisioned this kind of situation happening?" Siegler said.

"I'm willing to testify to the fact that we believe he's innocent," she said. "I've signed an affidavit. I'm not sure what we are supposed to do to make it happen."

In December, lawyers in the case discussed asking state District Judge Reva Towslee-Corbett, who signed the order freeing Graves, to change the wording of the order. This never happened, however, for reasons that could not be determined Monday."

Also: "Casarez [his lawyer] said other attorneys had assured her that the comptroller's office could approve the compensation because of the public statement's prosecutors had made about his innocence." She sought outside counsel and got a professional consensus. No, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work, but she's hardly negligent in any way at all.

These are all people looking for reasons the comptroller would refuse compensation in a case that so clearly warrants it, and I want to know wtf the judge is thinking too.

Link (new window)
 
2011-05-05 01:35:45 AM  
the legislature should grant him the money.
 
2011-05-05 01:38:37 AM  

TheWhoppah: No dice. Limitations is 3 years on most felonies. There are exceptions but the only way you get over 10 years is sexual assault of a child which is, if I remember correctly, 10 years from the 18th birthday ... or murder which has no limit.


Yeah but it's possible the limit starts when the act is discovered rather than when it was committed. Unlikely, but possible.

The Bar isn't bound by that though, so disbarment is still an option.
 
2011-05-05 01:45:19 AM  
I live in texas so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

/Actually, it does suck here
//Way too much derp
 
2011-05-05 01:45:52 AM  
Ta da, an actual answer. And a truly disappointing one at that.

The new prosecutors said Sebesta, the original prosecutor, committed prosecutorial misconduct. "Asked if Sebesta should face criminal prosecution for his actions, Siegler said, "Well, the statute of limitations has run on all that." She also said Parham's office has not discussed whether a complaint to the State Bar of Texas is appropriate."

"Sebesta retired 12 years ago. In 2009, he took out ads in two Burleson County newspapers reiterating that he believed Graves was a killer, to dispute critical news media reports."

"In 2007, Houston attorney Robert Bennett filed a bar complaint saying Sebesta and two assistant district attorneys acted unethically in the prosecution.

The State Bar dismissed the complaint, and officials said Sebesta has no disciplinary record."

If he's retired and the statute is up there's not much action to be taken against him, unless a civil claim is possible.

Link (new window)
 
2011-05-05 01:49:34 AM  

jadedlee: relcec: I'm not entirely sure the comptroller or law is at fault here. have you seen what the actual court documents say? the law requires "a certification of the claimant's actual innocence of the crime for which the claimant was sentenced" that doesn't seem way out there to me.
but yes, how can you go after the guy who saved your life because he cost you mon ...

You couldn't anyway; as has been mentioned here, the defense appeals team is not responsible for making sure he's compensated. They take on the responsibility of giving him the best representation possible for the purposes of appealing his death penalty conviction, not for anything that comes after that.

I am blaming the comptroller, she's an idiot and it's not like she can go around claiming she did her job considering she missed the original response deadline and only came up with one after further investigation by his lawyers.

"Kelly Siegler, the special prosecutor who recommended dropping the charges against Graves, said that the words "actual innocence" are not commonly used in the courtroom. She said the compensation law likely was designed for cases involving innocence proven through DNA, not a case thrown out by prosecutors after a reexamination of the evidence.

"Who would have envisioned this kind of situation happening?" Siegler said.

"I'm willing to testify to the fact that we believe he's innocent," she said. "I've signed an affidavit. I'm not sure what we are supposed to do to make it happen."

In December, lawyers in the case discussed asking state District Judge Reva Towslee-Corbett, who signed the order freeing Graves, to change the wording of the order. This never happened, however, for reasons that could not be determined Monday."

Also: "Casarez [his lawyer] said other attorneys had assured her that the comptroller's office could approve the compensation because of the public statement's prosecutors had made about his innocence." She sought outside counsel and got a professional consensus. No, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work, but she's hardly negligent in any way at all.

These are all people looking for reasons the comptroller would refuse compensation in a case that so clearly warrants it, and I want to know wtf the judge is thinking too.

Link (new window)


whoever was his attorney damn sure had a responsibility to try to get him compensated concurrently with getting him off for murder. don't give me this BS them not needing to spend 5 damn minutes educating themselves about the relevant restitution law as they file the damn exoneration documents. that's patently ridiculous, and any jury in the world would see it that way and take the malpractice insurance companies money for it unless the attorney had a contract that stipulated he specifically was not dealing with those aspects and was disclaiming all responsibility and even still maybe they would.
 
2011-05-05 01:51:11 AM  
FTA - This newspaper has credited Abbott for modernizing the state's child support collection efforts. That modernization should include the application of basic common sense in a case such as this.

Haha, as if any one or anything in Texas is capable of "common sense." Now I know that there are probably a lot of Texas residents who would cry foul at my assertion... "hey, I live in [Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston], so I'm not like those ignorant country-bumpkins (yes, Ft. Worth counts as bumpkin) who give our state a bad name!"

I got news for ya Big-City-Dweller Texan, just based on the fact that you choose to live in that backwards-ass retarded theocratic state proves that you have no more common sense than the reddest of necks in the Lone Star State.

Say what you want about my home of Oklahoma, but at least we don't allow a bunch of religious nuts to control our public school system, and we don't repeatedly vote complete douchebags with Rod Blagojevich Hair (and ethics) into office as governor.
 
2011-05-05 01:55:38 AM  

relcec: jadedlee: relcec: I'm not entirely sure the comptroller or law is at fault here. have you seen what the actual court documents say? the law requires "a certification of the claimant's actual innocence of the crime for which the claimant was sentenced" that doesn't seem way out there to me.
but yes, how can you go after the guy who saved your life because he cost you mon ...

You couldn't anyway; as has been mentioned here, the defense appeals team is not responsible for making sure he's compensated. They take on the responsibility of giving him the best representation possible for the purposes of appealing his death penalty conviction, not for anything that comes after that.

I am blaming the comptroller, she's an idiot and it's not like she can go around claiming she did her job considering she missed the original response deadline and only came up with one after further investigation by his lawyers.

"Kelly Siegler, the special prosecutor who recommended dropping the charges against Graves, said that the words "actual innocence" are not commonly used in the courtroom. She said the compensation law likely was designed for cases involving innocence proven through DNA, not a case thrown out by prosecutors after a reexamination of the evidence.

"Who would have envisioned this kind of situation happening?" Siegler said.

"I'm willing to testify to the fact that we believe he's innocent," she said. "I've signed an affidavit. I'm not sure what we are supposed to do to make it happen."

In December, lawyers in the case discussed asking state District Judge Reva Towslee-Corbett, who signed the order freeing Graves, to change the wording of the order. This never happened, however, for reasons that could not be determined Monday."

Also: "Casarez [his lawyer] said other attorneys had assured her that the comptroller's office could approve the compensation because of the public statement's prosecutors had made about his innocence." She sought outside counsel and got a professional consensus. No, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work, but she's hardly negligent in any way at all.

These are all people looking for reasons the comptroller would refuse compensation in a case that so clearly warrants it, and I want to know wtf the judge is thinking too.

Link (new window)

whoever was his attorney damn sure had a responsibility to try to get him compensated concurrently with getting him off for murder. don't give me this BS them not needing to spend 5 damn minutes educating themselves about the relevant restitution law as they file the damn exoneration documents. that's patently ridiculous, and any jury in the world would see it that way and take the malpractice insurance companies money for it unless the attorney had a contract that stipulated he specifically was not dealing with those aspects and was disclaiming all responsibility and even still maybe they would.


Just so you know, it's the judge's order that was worded wrong. Judges don't usually let lawyers write stuff for them (although they'll let clerks do it). From where I sit, she didn't even miss this one - she requested compensation immediately and when it was denied for patently stupid reasons she requested that the judge rewrite the ruling that was problematic, plus she got the prosecutor and the media involved. What else did you want her to do, exactly? She wasn't even negligent.
 
2011-05-05 01:58:53 AM  
I had legal mal lawyer that was an Adjunct professor. it was in California but I'll email him if I can find him.
 
2011-05-05 02:03:16 AM  

TheOther: 1. Get out of prison.

2. Get out of Texas.

3. Get the f*ck out of Texas.

4. GET THE F*CK OUT OF TEXAS!!!

If he stays, he'll end up back in jail over some bullshiat and probably 'hang himself in his cell in despair'.


That's assuming he doesn't fall down an empty elevator shaft on top of some bullets.
 
2011-05-05 02:07:21 AM  

jadedlee: relcec: jadedlee: relcec: I'm not entirely sure the comptroller or law is at fault here. have you seen what the actual court documents say? the law requires "a certification of the claimant's actual innocence of the crime for which the claimant was sentenced" that doesn't seem way out there to me.
but yes, how can you go after the guy who saved your life because he cost you mon ...

You couldn't anyway; as has been mentioned here, the defense appeals team is not responsible for making sure he's compensated. They take on the responsibility of giving him the best representation possible for the purposes of appealing his death penalty conviction, not for anything that comes after that.

I am blaming the comptroller, she's an idiot and it's not like she can go around claiming she did her job considering she missed the original response deadline and only came up with one after further investigation by his lawyers.

"Kelly Siegler, the special prosecutor who recommended dropping the charges against Graves, said that the words "actual innocence" are not commonly used in the courtroom. She said the compensation law likely was designed for cases involving innocence proven through DNA, not a case thrown out by prosecutors after a reexamination of the evidence.

"Who would have envisioned this kind of situation happening?" Siegler said.

"I'm willing to testify to the fact that we believe he's innocent," she said. "I've signed an affidavit. I'm not sure what we are supposed to do to make it happen."

In December, lawyers in the case discussed asking state District Judge Reva Towslee-Corbett, who signed the order freeing Graves, to change the wording of the order. This never happened, however, for reasons that could not be determined Monday."

Also: "Casarez [his lawyer] said other attorneys had assured her that the comptroller's office could approve the compensation because of the public statement's prosecutors had made about his innocence." She sought outside counsel and got a professional consensus. No, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work, but she's hardly negligent in any way at all.

These are all people looking for reasons the comptroller would refuse compensation in a case that so clearly warrants it, and I want to know wtf the judge is thinking too.

Link (new window)

whoever was his attorney damn sure had a responsibility to try to get him compensated concurrently with getting him off for murder. don't give me this BS them not needing to spend 5 damn minutes educating themselves about the relevant restitution law as they file the damn exoneration documents. that's patently ridiculous, and any jury in the world would see it that way and take the malpractice insurance companies money for it unless the attorney had a contract that stipulated he specifically was not dealing with those aspects and was disclaiming all responsibility and even still maybe they would.

Just so you know, it's the judge's order that was worded wrong. Judges don't usually let lawyers write stuff for them (although they'll let clerks do it). From where I sit, she didn't even miss this one - she requested compensation immediately and when it was denied for patently stupid reasons she requested that the judge rewrite the ruling that was problematic, plus she got the prosecutor and the media involved. What else did you want her to do, exactly? She wasn't even negligent.


why did you wait until now to say that?
 
2011-05-05 02:09:08 AM  
the lawyer requested the Actual Innocence or some such and the judge was having none of it? well then it wasn't the lawyers fault. if the lawyer didn't know or care what the wording was that's a problem.
 
2011-05-05 02:09:14 AM  

relcec: I had legal mal lawyer that was an Adjunct professor. it was in California but I'll email him if I can find him.


California law is the most distinct from any other state in the country, let's hope he's up on his Texas.

I really don't think it's malpractice because the judge wrote the order a specific way that ended up sucking.

Regardless, I think we're agreed the guy isn't going in that direction. It would still be nice to know, but if I had to vote on a likely candidate for malpractice I'd go for the original PD. There has to be some insufficient counsel there at minimum. But that's likely true of every presumably green underpaid overworked PD.
 
2011-05-05 02:13:48 AM  

lisarenee3505: FTA - This newspaper has credited Abbott for modernizing the state's child support collection efforts. That modernization should include the application of basic common sense in a case such as this.

Haha, as if any one or anything in Texas is capable of "common sense." Now I know that there are probably a lot of Texas residents who would cry foul at my assertion... "hey, I live in [Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston], so I'm not like those ignorant country-bumpkins (yes, Ft. Worth counts as bumpkin) who give our state a bad name!"

I got news for ya Big-City-Dweller Texan, just based on the fact that you choose to live in that backwards-ass retarded theocratic state proves that you have no more common sense than the reddest of necks in the Lone Star State.

Say what you want about my home of Oklahoma, but at least we don't allow a bunch of religious nuts to control our public school system, and we don't repeatedly vote complete douchebags with Rod Blagojevich Hair (and ethics) into office as governor.


Right. You don't have a state rep that just apologized for say blacks are lazy. Please. Oklahoma sucks.
 
2011-05-05 02:15:07 AM  

relcec: the lawyer requested the Actual Innocence or some such and the judge was having none of it? well then it wasn't the lawyers fault. if the lawyer didn't know or care what the wording was that's a problem.


Didn't read that story until just now. I would have mentioned it earlier but the internet was withholding exculpatory evidence, or something. I don't know that she requested specific wording, when you have the prosecutor requesting that charges be dropped there may have been a universal (except the judge) understanding of the circumstances and intent. Geez, the prosecutor has been going nuts about this too, it seems like it wasn't an oversight.

Upthread somewhere there was a claim that a relative of someone involved in the original trial was involved in writing the order and may have omitted the phrase intentionally to avoid culpability. No idea if it's true, but it's 2:15AM and I'm still watching extra innings so I guess I'll end up looking.
 
2011-05-05 02:15:26 AM  

Genta: "because the court did not use the words "actual innocence" in its release order, Comptroller Susan Combs said the state should not pay"


innocent until proven guilty?

so if he's let out because it cant be proven that he was guilty... then he's actually innocent. theres no half innocent in american law as far as i know.


this this and more this
time to start killing people in texas again.

/cant we just use the floriduh tag when we post texas stories??
 
2011-05-05 02:17:58 AM  

jadedlee: relcec: I had legal mal lawyer that was an Adjunct professor. it was in California but I'll email him if I can find him.

California law is the most distinct from any other state in the country, let's hope he's up on his Texas.

I really don't think it's malpractice because the judge wrote the order a specific way that ended up sucking.

Regardless, I think we're agreed the guy isn't going in that direction. It would still be nice to know, but if I had to vote on a likely candidate for malpractice I'd go for the original PD. There has to be some insufficient counsel there at minimum. But that's likely true of every presumably green underpaid overworked PD.


ok.
 
2011-05-05 02:21:27 AM  
california is not that different from texas btw, though I honestly have no idea about mal practice in either jurisdiction. California has maybe the hardest bar exam, and I've heard Louisiana might be the most different, but I have experience with LA.
 
2011-05-05 02:29:40 AM  

ArkAngel: Holy shiat. In one thread we're gonna have arguments on the death penalty, prosecutorial misconduct, faceless government, Texas, Rick Perry, and child support systems. And I'm sure someone will throw in a hot chick threadjack at some point.

This will be one to watch.


Texas is the reason why I no longer support the death penalty. That may change in the future. Since that is dependent upon Texas making justice a priority, it might be a while, though.

And why the hell do government officials not get thrown in jail when they knowingly subvert justice to imprison an innocent man? Immunity is fine when we're just talking about reasonable mistakes. It happens. But when a prosecutor goes out of his way to destroy someone's life for jollies, the bastard belongs in jail. The sentence should be no less than the combined time spent in prison of all innocents he purposely screwed over. And if someone was executed, then it should be treated the same as first degree murder.
 
2011-05-05 02:31:17 AM  

TheWhoppah: Silent But Deadly: TheWhoppah: mongbiohazard: Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did?

The statute of limitations would prevent his conviction even if you could get past prosecutorial immunity.

So it's OK to falsely imprison someone with false evidence, and hide away (using state resources to do so) and evade justice, but it is OK to put an innocent person away for 18 years? You are really full of derp. People like you really scare me. yeeesh.


I didn't write the farking statute of limitations. I'm telling you what the law is. If you don't like it write your farking congressman, don't say I'm "full of derp" just for explaining facts that you don't like. dumbass.


I'm not the one espousing the virtues of the current laws, you are. You have been called on the carpet about 1000 times in this thread, I think the duty belongs to you for supporting the "weird side". dumbass right back at you... You are still full of derp.
 
2011-05-05 02:37:31 AM  
Before you criticize Texas, does your state even allow for any compensation for the wrongly imprisoned?

"So how do exonerees get compensated? The sad news is most probably don't. According to the Innocence Project's Web site, 22 states currently have statutes under which innocent convicts are ensured some restitution: Alabama, California, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, plus the District of Columbia. In other words, less than half the states offer any form of guaranteed redress for the wrongly convicted."

"Many jurisdictions limit compensation, or make it practically unattainable, or both. For example, Wisconsin limits compensation to a measly $5,000 per year and a total of $25,000; New Hampshire caps compensation at $20,000; Montana offers only educational aid."
 
2011-05-05 02:41:36 AM  

relcec: california is not that different from texas btw, though I honestly have no idea about mal practice in either jurisdiction. California has maybe the hardest bar exam, and I've heard Louisiana might be the most different, but I have experience with LA.


California also has the baseball team that's about to keep my guys under 500. More accurately, it's our stupid pitcher who's going to manage that.

Also, the more I read about this the more confused I get. It's worse than the OBL coverage - every source has a different take on who was supposed to use the magic words and why they weren't used and why it's been months with lots of people publicly declaring support while nothing happens. Now I'm getting some that are saying the current regular prosecutor (not the special prosecutor hired for this case) is responsible, not the judge. Meanwhile, students at Prairie View A&M are trying to raise they money for him themselves. The fact that it's gotten to the point of college bake sales makes me want to cry.
 
2011-05-05 02:52:25 AM  

Alien Robot: Before you criticize Texas, does your state even allow for any compensation for the wrongly imprisoned?

"So how do exonerees get compensated? The sad news is most probably don't. According to the Innocence Project's Web site, 22 states currently have statutes under which innocent convicts are ensured some restitution: Alabama, California, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, plus the District of Columbia. In other words, less than half the states offer any form of guaranteed redress for the wrongly convicted."

"Many jurisdictions limit compensation, or make it practically unattainable, or both. For example, Wisconsin limits compensation to a measly $5,000 per year and a total of $25,000; New Hampshire caps compensation at $20,000; Montana offers only educational aid."


Yeah, the problem is Texas executes more people and has a higher rate of overturned convictions than any other state. Somewhere along the line the justice system there got way out of whack and compensation is a good way to right some individual wrongs and provide pressure to stop screwing up in the form of angry Texan taxpayers. I'd still rather have a state with a better track record of getting it right the first time than I would live in a state where they give people money for messing up. Also compensation is great in theory but if it's unattainable in this case after everything involved then it's more for show than for justice, and that might be even more cruel.
 
2011-05-05 02:54:55 AM  

Tainted1: TheOther: 1. Get out of prison.

2. Get out of Texas.

3. Get the f*ck out of Texas.

4. GET THE F*CK OUT OF TEXAS!!!

If he stays, he'll end up back in jail over some bullshiat and probably 'hang himself in his cell in despair'.

That's assuming he doesn't fall down an empty elevator shaft on top of some bullets.


Suicide?
 
2011-05-05 03:07:29 AM  
-

jadedlee: Alien Robot: Before you criticize Texas, does your state even allow for any compensation for the wrongly imprisoned?

"So how do exonerees get compensated? The sad news is most probably don't. According to the Innocence Project's Web site, 22 states currently have statutes under which innocent convicts are ensured some restitution: Alabama, California, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, plus the District of Columbia. In other words, less than half the states offer any form of guaranteed redress for the wrongly convicted."

"Many jurisdictions limit compensation, or make it practically unattainable, or both. For example, Wisconsin limits compensation to a measly $5,000 per year and a total of $25,000; New Hampshire caps compensation at $20,000; Montana offers only educational aid."

Yeah, the problem is Texas executes more people and has a higher rate of overturned convictions than any other state. Somewhere along the line the justice system there got way out of whack and compensation is a good way to right some individual wrongs and provide pressure to stop screwing up in the form of angry Texan taxpayers. I'd still rather have a state with a better track record of getting it right the first time than I would live in a state where they give people money for messing up. Also compensation is great in theory but if it's unattainable in this case after everything involved then it's more for show than for justice, and that might be even more cruel.


overturned by who? I probably don't have to tell going by overturned convictions alone is not a proper metric for measuring the effectiveness of justice system at all. I doubt nazi germany had very many convictions overturned.
 
2011-05-05 03:10:39 AM  

bartink: lisarenee3505: FTA - This newspaper has credited Abbott for modernizing the state's child support collection efforts. That modernization should include the application of basic common sense in a case such as this.

Haha, as if any one or anything in Texas is capable of "common sense." Now I know that there are probably a lot of Texas residents who would cry foul at my assertion... "hey, I live in [Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston], so I'm not like those ignorant country-bumpkins (yes, Ft. Worth counts as bumpkin) who give our state a bad name!"

I got news for ya Big-City-Dweller Texan, just based on the fact that you choose to live in that backwards-ass retarded theocratic state proves that you have no more common sense than the reddest of necks in the Lone Star State.

Say what you want about my home of Oklahoma, but at least we don't allow a bunch of religious nuts to control our public school system, and we don't repeatedly vote complete douchebags with Rod Blagojevich Hair (and ethics) into office as governor.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Right. You don't have a state rep that just apologized for say blacks are lazy. Please. Oklahoma sucks.

------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, you got me there. Sally Kern is a complete idiot and, in all seriousness, someone needs to beat that biatch to death with an axe handle before she can further embarrass the great state of Oklahoma. But she is ONE stupid biatch who doesn't really affect the whole state, whereas the Texas State School Board has power over the entire youth of Texas, and has set about to pound a course of ignorant theocratic rhetoric intro the heads of every single school-child in the state.

Yes, Oklahoma has its share of idiotic politicians (Kern, Inhofe, Coburn), but Texas gave us George W. Bush and a decade of war based on outright lies. I'm sorry, but nothing trumps that. You can talk shiat about Oklahoma as much as you want, but it will never change the absolute, universal FACT that Texas is the worst, most nationally-damaging state in the Union. Personally, I sincerely wish that they would secede from the USA, just so the rest of us would be free of their blight.

/born and raised in TX
//got out as soon as I could
 
2011-05-05 03:14:17 AM  
If Rick Perry is actually on board, isn't the fastest way to solve this problem to get a gubernatorial pardon on the grounds of innocence? Seems like it would satisfy the statute:

"(2) a verified copy of the pardon or court order justifying the application for compensation;"

And $80,000 per year is indeed pretty good for post-exoneration payments. Illinois pays $20,000 per year I think (we have a LOT of wrongfully convicted people), but the rule of thumb in successful civil lawsuits after you get out is closer to $1M per year.
 
2011-05-05 03:19:16 AM  
What do you expect from a state that wants to secede and is pissed we didn't give them a space shuttle as a going away present.
 
2011-05-05 03:22:53 AM  

lisarenee3505: bartink: lisarenee3505: FTA - This newspaper has credited Abbott for modernizing the state's child support collection efforts. That modernization should include the application of basic common sense in a case such as this.

Haha, as if any one or anything in Texas is capable of "common sense." Now I know that there are probably a lot of Texas residents who would cry foul at my assertion... "hey, I live in [Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston], so I'm not like those ignorant country-bumpkins (yes, Ft. Worth counts as bumpkin) who give our state a bad name!"

I got news for ya Big-City-Dweller Texan, just based on the fact that you choose to live in that backwards-ass retarded theocratic state proves that you have no more common sense than the reddest of necks in the Lone Star State.

Say what you want about my home of Oklahoma, but at least we don't allow a bunch of religious nuts to control our public school system, and we don't repeatedly vote complete douchebags with Rod Blagojevich Hair (and ethics) into office as governor.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Right. You don't have a state rep that just apologized for say blacks are lazy. Please. Oklahoma sucks.
------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, you got me there. Sally Kern is a complete idiot and, in all seriousness, someone needs to beat that biatch to death with an axe handle before she can further embarrass the great state of Oklahoma. But she is ONE stupid biatch who doesn't really affect the whole state, whereas the Texas State School Board has power over the entire youth of Texas, and has set about to pound a course of ignorant theocratic rhetoric intro the heads of every single school-child in the state.

Yes, Oklahoma has its share of idiotic politicians (Kern, Inhofe, Coburn), but Texas gave us George W. Bush and a decade of war based on outright lies. I'm sorry, but nothing trumps that. You can talk shiat about Oklahoma as much as you want, but it will never change the absolute, universal FACT that Texas is the worst, most nationally-damaging state in the Union. Personally, I sincerely wish that they would secede from the USA, just so the rest of us would be free of their blight.

/born and raised in TX
//got out as soon as I could


Oklahoma? dude, you must have been raised in el paso to think anywhere in Oklahoma was better. that or your poor as dirt or just plain insane. sorry, those are facts.
 
2011-05-05 03:23:22 AM  

lisarenee3505: Say what you want about my home of Oklahoma, but at least we don't allow a bunch of religious nuts to control our public school system


Don't be too smug about that particular issue, your state's education committee BARELY defeated a bill (by 1 vote) that would have promoted intelligent design in science classrooms. Most other states have never had such a bill come to vote.


lisarenee3505: Texas is the worst, most nationally-damaging state in the Union.


That I can agree on. Maybe we could relocate Austin before we kick Texas out, though, that town seems okay. The rest of Texas can suck it and GTFO. They already think they're their own country anyway.
 
2011-05-05 03:23:43 AM  
Texas is the state with the highest number of prisoners found to be innocent following DNA testing, according to the Innocence Project, a national organization working to exonerate wrongfully convicted people... More troubling is the fact that almost 50 percent of all executions in 2008 were performed in Texas. Human rights advocates find it troubling that Texas not only leads the nation in executions by a wide margin, but it also leads the nation in wrongful convictions. Link (new window)

Not like they really had trials, but if Nazi Germany had DNA testing things might have been even worse.
 
2011-05-05 03:26:17 AM  

Alien Robot: Before you criticize Texas, does your state even allow for any compensation for the wrongly imprisoned?

"So how do exonerees get compensated? The sad news is most probably don't. According to the Innocence Project's Web site, 22 states currently have statutes under which innocent convicts are ensured some restitution


Although The Innocence Project website^ says 27, that's still farked up. Are the wrongfully convicted supposed to sue before they get anything? Is that it?
 
2011-05-05 03:31:43 AM  

lisarenee3505: bartink: lisarenee3505: FTA - This newspaper has credited Abbott for modernizing the state's child support collection efforts. That modernization should include the application of basic common sense in a case such as this.

Haha, as if any one or anything in Texas is capable of "common sense." Now I know that there are probably a lot of Texas residents who would cry foul at my assertion... "hey, I live in [Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston], so I'm not like those ignorant country-bumpkins (yes, Ft. Worth counts as bumpkin) who give our state a bad name!"

I got news for ya Big-City-Dweller Texan, just based on the fact that you choose to live in that backwards-ass retarded theocratic state proves that you have no more common sense than the reddest of necks in the Lone Star State.

Say what you want about my home of Oklahoma, but at least we don't allow a bunch of religious nuts to control our public school system, and we don't repeatedly vote complete douchebags with Rod Blagojevich Hair (and ethics) into office as governor.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Right. You don't have a state rep that just apologized for say blacks are lazy. Please. Oklahoma sucks.
------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, you got me there. Sally Kern is a complete idiot and, in all seriousness, someone needs to beat that biatch to death with an axe handle before she can further embarrass the great state of Oklahoma. But she is ONE stupid biatch who doesn't really affect the whole state, whereas the Texas State School Board has power over the entire youth of Texas, and has set about to pound a course of ignorant theocratic rhetoric intro the heads of every single school-child in the state.

Yes, Oklahoma has its share of idiotic politicians (Kern, Inhofe, Coburn), but Texas gave us George W. Bush and a decade of war based on outright lies. I'm sorry, but nothing trumps that. You can talk shiat about Oklahoma as much as you want, but it will never change the absolute, universal FACT that Texas is the worst, most nationally-damaging state in the Union. Personally, I sincerely wish that they would secede from the USA, just so the rest of us would be free of their blight.

/born and raised in TX
//got out as soon as I could


George W. Bush was brought to you by the great state of Connecticut, confused elderly voters in Florida, a 5 seat majority of the Supreme Court, Diebold, you name it. Just don't put all the blame for that giant disaster on Texas. Even I think that's an unfair burden to shoulder alone.
 
2011-05-05 03:34:46 AM  

fish shure: If Rick Perry is actually on board, isn't the fastest way to solve this problem to get a gubernatorial pardon on the grounds of innocence? Seems like it would satisfy the statute:

"(2) a verified copy of the pardon or court order justifying the application for compensation;"

And $80,000 per year is indeed pretty good for post-exoneration payments. Illinois pays $20,000 per year I think (we have a LOT of wrongfully convicted people), but the rule of thumb in successful civil lawsuits after you get out is closer to $1M per year.


This is part of the problem. Pardons can only be granted to people who have been convicted of crimes. As his conviction was thrown out, he no longer meets that qualification, and even if he did pardon implies guilt which wouldn't qualify either.
 
2011-05-05 03:34:50 AM  

jadedlee: Yeah, the problem is Texas executes more people and has a higher rate of overturned convictions than any other state.


Because Texas has large numbers of people working to overturn wrongful convictions from a large population. If your state is run by people who are so cock-sure of themselves that they can do no wrong that they dare not accept any criticism of their justice system, then few if any wrongfully-convicted prisoners' sentences will get overturned. The innocent rot away in prison instead. Yes, it would be better to live in a state where there are no overzealous prosecutors and mistakes are not made, but there's no such state like that in the US.

Also compensation is great in theory but if it's unattainable in this case after everything involved then it's more for show than for justice, and that might be even more cruel.

[notsureifserious.jpg]

So you think it better to not give compensation to anyone than to deny it to some? WTF?
 
2011-05-05 03:53:14 AM  

TheWhoppah: veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.

That man murdered his own three young children in a fire. Twin infants and a two year old. There were four empty bottles of charcoal starter fluid right outside the front door, a fact the biased New Yorker article failed to mention. Contrary to what you were led to believe, even the "expert" quoted for that story did not conclude that the fire was not arson. Not even close. He concluded that four of the 12 clues of arson could have alternate explanations. Anti-death penalty zealots hand picked certain sentences from the report and jumped up and down claiming that man was innocent. He wasn't.


The New Yorker article specifically mentions a container of lighter fluid on the front porch. It also mentions a charcoal grill on the front porch, a fact your biased write-up failed to mention.

Imagine that, finding empty containers of ligher fluid near a charcoal grill.
 
2011-05-05 04:00:14 AM  

Alien Robot: jadedlee: Yeah, the problem is Texas executes more people and has a higher rate of overturned convictions than any other state.

Because Texas has large numbers of people working to overturn wrongful convictions from a large population. If your state is run by people who are so cock-sure of themselves that they can do no wrong that they dare not accept any criticism of their justice system, then few if any wrongfully-convicted prisoners' sentences will get overturned. The innocent rot away in prison instead. Yes, it would be better to live in a state where there are no overzealous prosecutors and mistakes are not made, but there's no such state like that in the US.

Also compensation is great in theory but if it's unattainable in this case after everything involved then it's more for show than for justice, and that might be even more cruel.

[notsureifserious.jpg]

So you think it better to not give compensation to anyone than to deny it to some? WTF?


I think it better to not have a compensation law which is arbitrary and unenforceable which only exists to make people feel better. The law is barely two years old, how many serious cases have even been applicable? If it doesn't apply to this case, which is a severe and worse - intentional - miscarriage of justice, I don't understand how it addresses the problem. If the governor, the special prosecutor, the judge, basically all involved agree this guy is innocent and months later this still isn't resolved and he has to sue then the law is seriously broken. It needs to be fixed or its no better than the flawed arbitrary system that results in so many faulty convictions.

If the question is do I believe in compensation, of course. What I meant is given the choice between a more equitable justice system and a more generous compensation system, I would take more equitable justice. Compensation is necessary and should be considered part of justice, but it will never make people whole. I'd rather there were fewer wrongly convicted people in the first place. Money is not a suitable replacement for depriving someone of freedom and human dignity, but in some cases it's the best we can do.
 
2011-05-05 04:29:47 AM  

TheWhoppah: veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.

That man murdered his own three young children in a fire. Twin infants and a two year old. There were four empty bottles of charcoal starter fluid right outside the front door, a fact the biased New Yorker article failed to mention. Contrary to what you were led to believe, even the "expert" quoted for that story did not conclude that the fire was not arson. Not even close. He concluded that four of the 12 clues of arson could have alternate explanations. Anti-death penalty zealots hand picked certain sentences from the report and jumped up and down claiming that man was innocent. He wasn't.


And now that I read Hurst's report, I can safely conclude you are completely full of shiat.

"A contemporary fire origin and cause analyst might well wonder how anyone could make so many critical errors in interpreting the evidence"

"Most of the conclusions reached by the Fire Marshall would be considered invalid in light of current knowledge"

It is "impossible to visually identify accelerate patterns" after a flashover.

"The finding of multiple origins was inappropriate even in the context of the state of the art in 1991."

"The fire marshal alleged that the charring of wood under the aluminum threshold was caused by a liquid accelerant burning under the threshold. This phenomenon is clearly impossible."

"The idea that crazed glass is an indicator of the use of a liquid accelerant is now classified by fire investigation as an Old Wives Tale."

"The identification of the presence of an accelerant based on brown rings on a cement floor is baseless speculation."

Yeah, "alternate explanations", my ass. He flat-out said the investigator was full of shiat. Just like you are.
 
2011-05-05 04:52:16 AM  

TheWhoppah: Without the explicit finding of innocence the Comptroller is limitted in what she can do, even if she knows right from wrong.


Then the architecture of the law is as useless as titties on a fish. See how that works?
 
2011-05-05 06:17:39 AM  

LeafyGreens: One of the best parts of living in Texas, aside from the taquerias, was listening to the Huntsville prison show on Saturday nights. Inmates would call in, often those on death row, and talk to loved ones.

It was really stirring; guilty or not, everyone deserves a voice.


That IS moving...but creepy enough that it doesn't increase AT ALL my desire to move to Texas, which is pretty much pegged at zero...

San Antonio's Riverwalk was nice, though.
 
2011-05-05 06:35:21 AM  
This is why I don't think fires in Texas are an aberration. They are a natural feature of hell.
 
2011-05-05 06:58:25 AM  

jadedlee: I think every reasonable person with an ounce of compassion wants to see this man get paid, but you're looking in the wrong place. Like I just posted, the bulk of the work on this case was done by journalism students on behalf of the Innocence Project. Yes, you'll have a lawyer who headed that team and could be liable, but what are you thinking? Let's bankrupt the organization that helps innocent people for free so that they can't help anyone else! Something something good deeds unpunished.


It isn't even clear that there was malpractice here.
 
2011-05-05 07:09:37 AM  

Beer It's What's For Dinner: TheWhoppah: veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.

That man murdered his own three young children in a fire. Twin infants and a two year old. There were four empty bottles of charcoal starter fluid right outside the front door, a fact the biased New Yorker article failed to mention. Contrary to what you were led to believe, even the "expert" quoted for that story did not conclude that the fire was not arson. Not even close. He concluded that four of the 12 clues of arson could have alternate explanations. Anti-death penalty zealots hand picked certain sentences from the report and jumped up and down claiming that man was innocent. He wasn't.

The New Yorker article specifically mentions a container of lighter fluid on the front porch. It also mentions a charcoal grill on the front porch, a fact your biased write-up failed to mention.

Imagine that, finding empty containers of lighter fluid near a charcoal grill.



But four of them, man? I mean, four? I've got three empties laying around my grill like all goodhearted people might accumulate, but four almost certainly implies the influence and perhaps worship of the Devil.
 
2011-05-05 07:12:14 AM  
An excellent example of how we have let laws, rules, etc replace common sense.

robert
 
2011-05-05 07:36:33 AM  
I can't believe the original prosecutor has set up a website saying this is all a vast conspiracy against him.

What the fark.
 
2011-05-05 08:25:52 AM  

jst3p: $5,420 - Total to be collected by the state (to be paid to the mother of his now-grown children for expenses she incurred between 1998 and 2002)

$5400 for 5 years of child support!?!? I wish.


Its possible he paid what he could when he was in jail through some means or another, with $5400 being the difference in paid versus owed.
 
2011-05-05 08:28:41 AM  
Texas...the weather is nice, but the people are retarded.
A stupid populace tends to elect stupid leadership.
 
2011-05-05 08:58:15 AM  

Genta: "because the court did not use the words "actual innocence" in its release order, Comptroller Susan Combs said the state should not pay"


innocent until proven guilty?

so if he's let out because it cant be proven that he was guilty... then he's actually innocent. theres no half innocent in american law as far as i know.


American Law ≠ Texas Law
 
2011-05-05 09:02:16 AM  

1-phenylpropan-2-amine: $1.4m - $5k. Problem?


Yes...the problems is...they would have to pay him. They don't have any problem taking it away from you, but if you expect them to pay up to you, it's gonna be a fight.
 
2011-05-05 09:10:43 AM  

TheWhoppah: veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.

That man murdered his own three young children in a fire. Twin infants and a two year old. There were four empty bottles of charcoal starter fluid right outside the front door, a fact the biased New Yorker article failed to mention. Contrary to what you were led to believe, even the "expert" quoted for that story did not conclude that the fire was not arson. Not even close. He concluded that four of the 12 clues of arson could have alternate explanations. Anti-death penalty zealots hand picked certain sentences from the report and jumped up and down claiming that man was innocent. He wasn't.


Cite your evidence or shutup.
 
2011-05-05 09:19:43 AM  

Baron-Harkonnen: Have you guys ever coughed up a chunky, white piece of...something...that smelled like the pure essence of bad breath in solid form?


Tonsilloliths
(new window)

/ you're welcome.
 
2011-05-05 09:20:19 AM  
Texas:
Tough on Crime
week un Ejykayshun
 
2011-05-05 09:54:22 AM  
Remember, Texas also gave us LBJ, who thought space exploration was pretty neato, and that a central project of a self-governed people should be the elimination of poverty. He had plenty of faults otherwise, but he's an older-school type of Texan worth remembering.

However, if they do secede, Texas could become THE new hotspot for sex tourism. We'll just build a wall around parts of Austin and airlift in supplies.
 
2011-05-05 10:24:12 AM  
Step 1: Give Texas to Mexico and Florida to Cuba
Step 2: ???
Step 3: No profit, but I would be happier.
 
2011-05-05 10:28:59 AM  

mongbiohazard: So I have a crazy little question... Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did? They make it pretty clear what he did wasn't an accident. Whether he believed the guy was really guilty or not, deceiving the courts in order to unfairly railroad him through... It seems like they could cite some laws the former DA broke if they wanted to. Let's start with perjury, for one.


The cool thing is prosecutors have absolute immunity for their actions. So they can like put you in jail on trumped up charges if they don't like the way you tie your shoes. Exaggerating? No.
 
2011-05-05 10:32:00 AM  

jst3p: $5,420 - Total to be collected by the state (to be paid to the mother of his now-grown children for expenses she incurred between 1998 and 2002)

$5400 for 5 years of child support!?!? I wish.


Gotta keep 'em in their place.
 
2011-05-05 10:37:57 AM  
Regarding the Willing

TheWhoppah: veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.

That man murdered his own three young children in a fire. Twin infants and a two year old. There were four empty bottles of charcoal starter fluid right outside the front door, a fact the biased New Yorker article failed to mention. Contrary to what you were led to believe, even the "expert" quoted for that story did not conclude that the fire was not arson. Not even close. He concluded that four of the 12 clues of arson could have alternate explanations. Anti-death penalty zealots hand picked certain sentences from the report and jumped up and down claiming that man was innocent. He wasn't.


To further point out how moronic you have made yourself look, I dug a little deeper into this man's life and death.

A fire scientist, Craig Beyler, did a thorough examination of the entire investigation and trial. The read is very interesting and clearly points out that the two people involved in Willingham's arson investigation were incompetent at best.

FTFR:

CONCLUSIONS
The investigations of the Willis and Willingham fires did not comport with either the modern standard of care expressed by NFPA 921, or the standard of care expressed by fire investigation texts and papers in the period 1980-1992. The investigators had poor understandings of fire science and failed to acknowledge or apply the contemporaneous understanding of the limitations of fire indicators. Their methodologies did not comport with the scientific method or the process of elimination. A finding of arson could not be sustained based upon the standard of care expressed by NFPA 921, or the standard of care expressed by fire investigation texts and papers in the period 1980-1992.
 
2011-05-05 10:43:49 AM  

tomerson: Farkin Texas. Succeed from the union already. Good riddance.


i48.photobucket.com
 
2011-05-05 10:49:31 AM  
Sorry America,...our bad.
www.dvorak.org


Oh shiat,...sorry again America.
www.historycommons.org


Ah Fark it.
www.nashvillescene.com
 
2011-05-05 10:50:59 AM  
Texas, The Lone Star Stoned Tard State
 
2011-05-05 10:53:39 AM  
Please dont be black...clicks link
Do'h.
Man this blows
 
2011-05-05 10:58:57 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Graves was convicted in 1994 of assisting Robert Carter in multiple murders in 1992. There was no physical evidence linking Graves to the crime, and his conviction relied primarily on Carter's testimony that Graves was his accomplice. Two weeks before Carter was scheduled to be executed in 2000, he provided a statement saying he lied about Graves's involvement in the crime. He repeated that statement minutes before his execution.

So basically the only evidence linking him to the crime was the actual murderer, who eventually admitted to lying. Jesus christ, give this guy double what he's owed.


And this was in 2000, so the guy spend another 11 years in prison after his only accuser recanted his testimony. I'm betting the original prosecutor fought against the guys release from back then.
 
2011-05-05 11:04:53 AM  

Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.


I call Bullshiat on your Bullshiat. There are three designations now and have been for some time.

Guilty, Not Guilty, and Innocent.

Innocent =/= Not Guilty.

I love this state, but sometimes this bullshiat gets overwhelming. Pay the man already and be done with it. I don't see how this could end well for anyone who opposes that.
 
2011-05-05 11:09:04 AM  
Dear Texas:

Go! What are you waiting for, an invitation? Here it is! Now go!
 
2011-05-05 11:22:08 AM  

vd61: Brainwash: SphericalTime: Texas should have a tag on Fark. It's like the evil version of Florida.

And also, wow, that is totally farked up.

This was my exact thought after reading the headline.


Thirded. Let's get a texas tag


Something similar to the old "no intel inside" bumper stickers I used to see

Seriously, his kids are grown and not in need of the support. Seems I read somewhere that he is back with his wife anyway once he was released... why can't she get the support order vacated?
They are going to wish all they had to pay was 1.4 million after all of this is over.
 
2011-05-05 11:33:10 AM  
Cases like this are why you should always do as much crime as you can - then even if you do get wrongfully convicted of something, you're still ahead of the game.

/criminal logic
 
2011-05-05 11:35:14 AM  
Hate speech, my ass.
 
2011-05-05 01:09:13 PM  
 
2011-05-05 01:18:21 PM  

mongbiohazard: So I have a crazy little question... Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did? They make it pretty clear what he did wasn't an accident. Whether he believed the guy was really guilty or not, deceiving the courts in order to unfairly railroad him through... It seems like they could cite some laws the former DA broke if they wanted to. Let's start with perjury, for one.


It was a different time, you understand. It was a different time. 1982 or 83.

/NASSA
 
2011-05-05 01:19:13 PM  
I hate this craphole of a state I live in
 
2011-05-05 01:22:52 PM  
Criminal prosecution in Texas is deeply flawed.

I could go on, but that's really not necessary.

And Sharon Keller (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) is a goddam idiot.
 
2011-05-05 01:23:24 PM  

Mart-tiiiin: mongbiohazard: So I have a crazy little question... Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did? They make it pretty clear what he did wasn't an accident. Whether he believed the guy was really guilty or not, deceiving the courts in order to unfairly railroad him through... It seems like they could cite some laws the former DA broke if they wanted to. Let's start with perjury, for one.

It was a different time, you understand. It was a different time. 1982 or 83.

/NASSA


Damnit. Crappy math messed up my homage.
 
2011-05-05 01:27:38 PM  
Not to excuse anybody, but Texas isn't the only state that sticks people in prison for crimes it hasn't really proved they committed. All the other states do it, too. And they're just about as assholish about being proven wrong as Texas is.

So while the Texas bashing is kind of amusing, it's pointless. Prosecutorial misconduct happens everywhere. They've just kind of perfected it in Texas. Or they're just really proud of it.
 
2011-05-05 01:56:25 PM  

TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.


Shut the fark up. Not all of us read Fark 24/7 like you do. Maybe we missed it the first time. If you've seen it before, then close it and read something else, you mindless fark.
 
2011-05-05 01:57:52 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Prosecutorial misconduct happens everywhere.


And, in a free society, it cannot be tolerated!

The assholishness of Texas is that they have a admitted criminal prosecutorial misconduct and they have a law to compensate the victims of it. But in this case, they are refusing to pay up because the judge didn't use the word that some dumbass comptroller thinks he should have used.

So I'm going to continue bashing that billy-bob bullshiat state. I lived there for while once and couldn't wait to get away. There's a serious secessionist movement there. Let them go and when the U.S. government moves the eight huge military bases there to someplace else, we will hear some texas-sized whining all the way to Maine.
 
2011-05-05 02:06:44 PM  

Fibro: Craig Beyler


Craig Beyler was hired not to find out what happened but to "prove" it wasn't arson. He looked at 10 year old photographs and said that it MIGHT NOT be arson. The Fire Marshall is long dead but Beyler didnt even bother to request an interview with the guy who was the Deputy Fire Marshall who assisted the Fire Marshall in actually sifting through the charred remains of the house. Why?

That Deputy is now a full-blown expert with the same credentials as Beyler. He said that even in retrospect and even using the latest credentials that the fire was definatly arson.

But don't take my word for it, read Willingham's own explanation of the fire and what happened that day. He changed his story half a dozen times but no matter which one you believe the basic facts are:
1. He was napping and the 2 year old woke him up yelling about smoke.
2. He told her "get out of the house" and left her to fend for herself.
3. He walked down the hall past the room where the twin babies were sleeping.
4. He exited the house before there was any smoke or flame visible from the outside.
5. He watched it burn without trying to save the three children.

That was Willingham's story. He said he didn't start the fire but he made zero effort to save the children.

So you can disbelieve the expert that actually investigated the fire in favor of the one that only looked at old photos. And you can ignore the jailhouse confession. And you can ignore the empty bottles of charcoal lighter. And you an ignore the fact he wanted his wife to abort the twins and punched her in the stomach. And you can ignore the fact that he move his car away from the burning house "so the paint wouldn't get scorched" but didnt try re-enter to help the kids. And you can ignore the testimony of neighbors that said he was standing in the yard looking in the windows in a curious way five minutes before smoke started billowing. And you can ignore the later confession to his ex wife.

But how the fark do you ignore that he calmly walked out of the house WITHOUT EVEN TRYING to save his own children?!?

Sorry but you have been scammed by a yellow journalist telling half the story. You are just like all those republicans that wanted soooo hard to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. You are pathetic.
 
2011-05-05 02:11:37 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Not to excuse anybody, but Texas isn't the only state that sticks people in prison for crimes it hasn't really proved they committed. All the other states do it, too. And they're just about as assholish about being proven wrong as Texas is.

So while the Texas bashing is kind of amusing, it's pointless. Prosecutorial misconduct happens everywhere. They've just kind of perfected it in Texas. Or they're just really proud of it.


Nebraska just released a guy last year who was on death row for 22 years. DNA proved he didn't kill the victim, witnesses had testified at the trial he was nowhere near the scene, and he wasn't a known acquaintance of the victim. The man who testified against him was there, and was arrested for being an accomplis, said he was told to implicate the man or HE would be charged with the murder.

The freed man might get $220,000.00 if a bill is passed in the Legislature, but its passage is doubtful.

So no, Texas isn't the only state pulling this crap.
 
2011-05-05 02:13:35 PM  
Do you realize that the ONLY REASON Texas has so many DNA exhonorations is that the elected District Attorney in Dallas County subjected every old rape case to DNA analysis going back as far as they had evidence preserved.

No other juridiction in the nation has done this; if other states did this the rates for Texas wouldn't be so high. Because of Craig Watson's work it is quite likely that Dallas has the fewest innocent people in prison of any city in the nation.

I guess no good deed goes unpunished.
 
2011-05-05 03:37:19 PM  

relcec: lisarenee3505: bartink: lisarenee3505: FTA - This newspaper has credited Abbott for modernizing the state's child support collection efforts. That modernization should include the application of basic common sense in a case such as this.

Haha, as if any one or anything in Texas is capable of "common sense." Now I know that there are probably a lot of Texas residents who would cry foul at my assertion... "hey, I live in [Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston], so I'm not like those ignorant country-bumpkins (yes, Ft. Worth counts as bumpkin) who give our state a bad name!"

I got news for ya Big-City-Dweller Texan, just based on the fact that you choose to live in that backwards-ass retarded theocratic state proves that you have no more common sense than the reddest of necks in the Lone Star State.

Say what you want about my home of Oklahoma, but at least we don't allow a bunch of religious nuts to control our public school system, and we don't repeatedly vote complete douchebags with Rod Blagojevich Hair (and ethics) into office as governor.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Right. You don't have a state rep that just apologized for say blacks are lazy. Please. Oklahoma sucks.
------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, you got me there. Sally Kern is a complete idiot and, in all seriousness, someone needs to beat that biatch to death with an axe handle before she can further embarrass the great state of Oklahoma. But she is ONE stupid biatch who doesn't really affect the whole state, whereas the Texas State School Board has power over the entire youth of Texas, and has set about to pound a course of ignorant theocratic rhetoric intro the heads of every single school-child in the state.

Yes, Oklahoma has its share of idiotic politicians (Kern, Inhofe, Coburn), but Texas gave us George W. Bush and a decade of war based on outright lies. I'm sorry, but nothing trumps that. You can talk shiat about Oklahoma as much as you want, but it will never change the absolute, universal FACT that Texas is the worst, most nationally-damaging state in the Union. Personally, I sincerely wish that they would secede from the USA, just so the rest of us would be free of their blight.

/born and raised in TX
//got out as soon as I could
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oklahoma? dude, you must have been raised in el paso to think anywhere in Oklahoma was better. that or your poor as dirt or just plain insane. sorry, those are facts.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Know how I know that you don't know jack shiat about Oklahoma?
 
2011-05-05 03:51:32 PM  

TheWhoppah: Do you realize that the ONLY REASON Texas has so many DNA exhonorations is that the elected District Attorney in Dallas County subjected every old rape case to DNA analysis going back as far as they had evidence preserved.

No other juridiction in the nation has done this; if other states did this the rates for Texas wouldn't be so high. Because of Craig Watson's work it is quite likely that Dallas has the fewest innocent people in prison of any city in the nation.

I guess no good deed goes unpunished.


/Oh... you're still here.
//If you keep preaching that the Texas legal system doesn't suck, I'm certain that someone will believe you.
///Eventually.
////Good luck.
 
2011-05-05 07:35:53 PM  
political threads scare me. All I'll add is this. This will not change my stance on the death penalty. If you deserve it, you deserve it. If you don't, you don't. This man... doesn't.

I am pro-death penalty, not pro-ARRESTING AN INNOCENT MAN AND PUTTING HIM ON DEATH ROW. Granted, once it was proven, they released him. Thank goodness for small miracles... Then the shiat started. You nail him for back child support, but find a loophole the size of a needle's eye to keep from paying him what he is rightfully entitled to? Have faith in justice my ass. if there IS a god, when this is over, he'll be able to BUY Texas.

Plus, I bet if he's rightfully compensated, he'll pay that back child support.
 
2011-05-05 08:27:46 PM  

metal_gear: political threads scare me. All I'll add is this. This will not change my stance on the death penalty. If you deserve it, you deserve it. If you don't, you don't. This man... doesn't.

I am pro-death penalty, not pro-ARRESTING AN INNOCENT MAN AND PUTTING HIM ON DEATH ROW. Granted, once it was proven, they released him. Thank goodness for small miracles... Then the shiat started. You nail him for back child support, but find a loophole the size of a needle's eye to keep from paying him what he is rightfully entitled to? Have faith in justice my ass. if there IS a god, when this is over, he'll be able to BUY Texas.

Plus, I bet if he's rightfully compensated, he'll pay that back child support.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-05-05 09:13:22 PM  
TheWhoppah: Do you realize that the ONLY REASON Texas has so many DNA exhonorations is that the elected District Attorney in Dallas County subjected every old rape case to DNA analysis going back as far as they had evidence preserved.

No other juridiction in the nation has done this; if other states did this the rates for Texas wouldn't be so high. Because of Craig Watson's work it is quite likely that Dallas has the fewest innocent people in prison of any city in the nation.

I guess no good deed goes unpunished.



Repeated for emphasis.
 
2011-05-05 09:38:51 PM  

Alien Robot: TheWhoppah: Do you realize that the ONLY REASON Texas has so many DNA exhonorations is that the elected District Attorney in Dallas County subjected every old rape case to DNA analysis going back as far as they had evidence preserved.

No other juridiction in the nation has done this; if other states did this the rates for Texas wouldn't be so high. Because of Craig Watson's work it is quite likely that Dallas has the fewest innocent people in prison of any city in the nation.

I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

Repeated for emphasis.


To be fair, the other option was just to declare that Dallas County courts were so incompetent and/or corrupt that all convictions in Dallas County were void.

/hyperbole
//but living in dfw most of my life - probably accurate
 
2011-05-05 09:50:28 PM  
How do some people treat others like this?

This sort of treatment would make some men go "postal"

His life is stolen.
 
2011-05-05 10:28:20 PM  
Summer Glau's Love Slave:


OMG.

I think that's my tech teacher.

Holy fark.
 
2011-05-05 10:31:20 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Criminal prosecution in Texas is deeply flawed.

I could go on, but that's really not necessary.

And Sharon Keller (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) is a goddam idiot.



What do you expect when you put a blind, deaf holocaust victim in charge of appeals?
 
2011-05-05 11:08:18 PM  

PsiChick: Summer Glau's Love Slave:


OMG.

I think that's my tech teacher.

Holy fark.


Random pic. I just googled "Crazed Texan" and that's what came up. I added the text.
 
2011-05-06 12:01:04 AM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: PsiChick: Summer Glau's Love Slave:


OMG.

I think that's my tech teacher.

Holy fark.

Random pic. I just googled "Crazed Texan" and that's what came up. I added the text.


...You know, I'm not actually surprised...my tech teacher IS a crazy guy. And, for that matter, would be right at home in Texas.

...Wow. Small world.
 
2011-05-06 02:22:13 AM  

veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.

/many of y'all are probably familiar with the case
//I literally shook with anger the first time I read it


Wow, I actually wasn't very familiar with that case. The most upsetting thing was that it all happened so recently. I understand the whole shaking with anger that you felt. After the anger subsided, it suddenly became very dusty in the office.

Thanks for the link. It was a good read.
 
2011-05-06 01:36:35 PM  
If anyone has any tax questions for Texas, information can be found here.

http://www.window.state.tx.us/
 
2011-05-07 03:03:10 AM  

veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.


Um, is that bad? Should they have given him an award? I think if you 'murder your family in a fire' the punishment should be rather severe.
 
Displayed 315 of 315 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report