David Weeks, DA in Huntsville, Walker County, prevailed in his writ of mandamus! A trial court is required to instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case. This opinion is a must read. Read all about it in the TDCAA summaries this week. But here is the opinion: http://www.cca.courts.state.tx....ASP?OPINIONID=23606

Very impressive win! It resulted in a well-written opinion that I think will be broadly beneficial to the State as well as helping in this particular case.

Good luck on your verdict now!

Great, great work by David Weeks, and Jane Starnes and Leslie Kuykendahl from the AG's office. Way to stick to your position in a most difficult situation!

The fact that the appellate courts would issue a stay of proceedings in the trial court is the essential and most important part of the decisions in both Waco and Austin. Clarification of the true meaning of "ministerial" should prove quite beneficial.

Congratulations to all involved!!!

Great job to David and the Ag's office personel on winning a tough battle.

Remand after mandamus

WOW! Just WOW!

A shame, in anybody's book

A dead prison guard, grieving family and heart-shredding legacy of pain and grief. Created by a pair of criminals and perpetuated by the bench.

It is completely disgusting and shameful that a judge can be that spiteful.

Of course, no one in the media asked (when the judge was giving his opinions) if he would have done the same thing if the CCA had upheld the COA. Oh, well. . . .

I would like to think they could mandamus to bring the jury back, since the original mandamus would issue if the judge didn't do what he was supposed to (and clearly he didn't), but my concern is that an appeals court would rule the issue moot since there is no longer an existing controversy. I would argue that because the issue is capable of repetition and consistently evades review, it should still be reviewed. Otherwise, any judge who doesn't like the case or an order on mandamus can just declare a mistrial and not worry about it.

Obviously placing the burden on the jury to try to arrive at a just verdict was not an impossiblity. Unconscionable? Hmm. That term is a bit vague, but the more important and expensive the case the less the delay seems unconscionable. And what would make it unconscionable, having to remember the details of the evidence? Suppose each juror had already formed a tentative opinion and that all twelve, on the first vote, found their opinions were the same-hardly unconscionable. My guess is the judge either decided he could not steer the jury in the desired direction using the charge mandated by the appellate court, or he just wanted to say "I'll show you" to the appellate court's daring to interrupt his court proceeding (for any length of time). The true shame lies in the judge raising the issue, when no one else did. Even if the decision is challenged, I fear the next judge is hog tied. It will take some ingenious argument to get around the conclusion that there was no necessity and that nothing was very manifest. Maybe jeopardy does not attach if the judge shows that he was disqualified to hear the case.