Skip to main content

View Diary: Man with 51 IQ held for 30 years without proper trial (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  he had a trial lawyer, but not for appeals. (7+ / 0-)

    Just a jailhouse friend who helped him with the pleadings.

    •  Yikes! His Lawyer Let this Happen?? nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YucatanMan, raincrow

      "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

      by Aspe4 on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 06:42:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's go back to that 1983 Tx Ct Crim App opinion (5+ / 0-)

        Voila. There were timing issues involved:

        The State's only meritorious issue raised in this regard is whether appellant failed to properly preserve his error as to the exclusion of this venirewoman. The State now maintains that while appellant's trial counsel made "an exception" to the court's ruling, this constituted nothing more than a general objection and he therefore waived any possible error. We do not agree. It must be kept in mind that the voir dire examination in question took place in June of 1977, three full years prior to the June 1980 decision in Adams, supra. Therefore, at the time Hlozek was excused, Sec. 12.31(b) was considered constitutional even to the extent that it allowed exclusion of prospective jurors on a broader ground than Witherspoon, supra, and consequently there was no reason for appellant's counsel to strenuously attempt to preserve his error. We find that appellant did not waive his error. The improper exclusion of even one juror requires that the death sentence not be imposed. Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 97 S.Ct. 399, 50 L.Ed.2d 399 (1976). The State's contention is overruled

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site