The whole fact he killed someone before should be enough to show he would pose a greater danger in the future.

In my expert opinion, the [sick] tag is too lazy and shiftless to make an appearance.


/genuinely appalled by this

That's bullshiat. You should only be executed if you had Iron Maiden and Led Zeppelin posters on your wall.

thomps: The case was complicated by the fact that other inmates in other cases had been granted new sentencing hearings by the State of Texas because of similar testimony by Quijano. But Alito, Scalia and Breyer said, "The fact remains that this case is different from all the rest." The justices said, "This is the only case in which it can be said that the responsibility for eliciting the offensive testimony lay squarely with the defense."

wow, good work vetting your witness. assuming some of those testimonies came prior to this one, is this grounds for a malpractice suit from beck's soon-to-be estate?

I watched part of the Dr Conrad Murray trial. At one point the defense called a witness to testify about how giving propofol wasn't too crazy. On cross, the prosecutor asked: "and would you ever give propofol without lots of monitors?" (as Dr Murray had). The expert said Absolutely NOT!"

wah wah waaah. As you said, nice witness vetting.

The defense doesn't get to botch their case and cry foul.

Warlordtrooper: Does it really matter if it was brought up by the defense, the fact of the matter is they used the "blacks are bad" as a way to convince the jury that death is the best option, THAT is the problem not who brought it up.

It does matter that the defense brought it up. They can't really object to their own witness. They put it out there, even if 'it' is racist assholery.

/against the death penalty, but legally, I get this

The case was complicated by the fact that other inmates in other cases had been granted new sentencing hearings by the State of Texas because of similar testimony by Quijano. But Alito, Scalia and Breyer said, "The fact remains that this case is different from all the rest." The justices said, "This is the only case in which it can be said that the responsibility for eliciting the offensive testimony lay squarely with the defense."

So subby, how long have you been a moron?

To be fair, it's Texas. They'll zap anybody: man, woman, white, black, retard, it doesn't matter. The fact the dude was black is just a factor in how many spooge-rags they hand out during his electrocution.

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Oh, so we're green lighting that blatant failure of reading comprehension that is the headline? Nice work, guys.

What are you, new?

Yeah, I know. I have a cold.

Well let's just hope it doesn't become a habit around here. This could damage Fark's reputation.

I thought the SCOTUS outrage du jour was GPS monitoring without a warrant?

So being black doesn't get you off a murder rap just because you had a horrible defense that for some reason felt the need to focus on your skin color.

/that seems fair actually.

WTF. Whose side was Buck's defense on?

Another grossly misleading headline on the politics tab. It's getting ridiculous.

"A hospital is no place to be if you're sick"
-unknown

"If you're looking for justice, don't go in a courtroom."
-me

As someone who has been to court a few times, I offer the following advice to anyone considering litigation of any sort: Don't do it. The only way you can win is by not even going forward with it. If you decide to pursue litigation make sure you are well aware of the unintended consequences and possible blow-back.

"If you meet a good lawyer... keep him as a friend because there aren't many out there."
-me

feckingmorons: We shouldn't kill people.

I want to agree with you but I don't know if I can. There are certain cases where I believe people surrender their own right to live by inflicting such tremendous violence on others.

It's kinda tribal, but a strong society consists of layers of social contracts. Having a reasonable belief that folks who willfully steal the lives of others deserve a similar fate is an easy sell.

Duane Buck's guilt for the death of his former girlfriend was never at issue, but Buck sought a new sentencing hearing because of testimony that contended that he posed a greater danger because he is black.

Eh, another (failed) attempt to get the death penalty overturned. While I disagree with the death penalty, sadly it's not high on the priority list for most people.

Wait Wait Wait

I've got it! The most important sentence in that whole article:

Duane Buck's guilt for the death of his former girlfriend was never at issue

That is all. Sorry if race was ever an issue at your trial or during your arrest. It doesn't change the fact that you're a murderer.

thomps: Mr. Breeze: Wait Wait Wait

I've got it! The most important sentence in that whole article:

Duane Buck's guilt for the death of his former girlfriend was never at issue

That is all. Sorry if race was ever an issue at your trial or during your arrest. It doesn't change the fact that you're a murderer.

boy if only they were discussing sentencing and not overturning the verdict. then it really would matter.

Doesn't matter. If he hadn't killed her it wouldn't be an issue. Besides, most liberals agree that the death penalty is a lighter sentence than life in prison. So technically, he's getting off easy?

Britney Spear's Speculum: Duane Buck's guilt for the death of his former girlfriend was never at issue, but Buck sought a new sentencing hearing because of testimony that contended that he posed a greater danger because he is black.

Eh, another (failed) attempt to get the death penalty overturned. While I disagree with the death penalty, sadly it's not high on the priority list for most people.

Death Penalty trials are 2 phases. He was guilty, no question. Sentencing in capital cases is a separate trial. And generally you're not allowed to be any more racist at sentencing than you are in the guilt phase. But when you call AN EXPERT! someone the defense had TOTAL DISCRETION on calling and they run some crazy racist science up the flag pole you don't get to take it back.

Also someone asked upthread about ineffective assistance of counsel. Yes, but Buck would have to show that it was material. aka he wouldnt be dying without that testimony. I kinda doubt that was the tipping point so they won't be penalized too harshly. Definitely should be fired though

So the Supreme Court justices have skin color, eh?

Sounds good enough to prosecute 'em!

How did I know this would involve Texas?

12% of the population, 63% of violent crimes committed... Damn straight race is an issue. Or rather, racial "culture".

/lived in California
//lived and worked in Topeka
///working now in Tupelo

.It seems clear cut. The prosecution did nothing wrong and it was the defense's own witness.
How could Sotomayor, Kagan, and Supreme Court Justice Subby not understand this?

thomps: Mr. Breeze: thomps: Mr. Breeze: Wait Wait Wait

I've got it! The most important sentence in that whole article:

Duane Buck's guilt for the death of his former girlfriend was never at issue

That is all. Sorry if race was ever an issue at your trial or during your arrest. It doesn't change the fact that you're a murderer.

boy if only they were discussing sentencing and not overturning the verdict. then it really would matter.

Doesn't matter. If he hadn't killed her it wouldn't be an issue. Besides, most liberals agree that the death penalty is a lighter sentence than life in prison. So technically, he's getting off easy?

oh. sorry for the response folks.

lol

Looks like yesterday you were free to f*ck up your own defense...

...and tomorrow you'll be free to f*ck up your own defense.

The Dog Ate The Constitution: The defense doesn't get to botch their case and cry foul.

This.