Seems you mean ol' prosecutors just want to kill everyone willy-nilly and must be stopped (again) ... this time, it's the law of parties ...

Wrong Place, Wrong Time

TDCAA is to blame!

Just the latest representation from those who want to abolish the death penalty. We know that neither the death penalty nor the law of parties is used indiscrimately in these cases. Apparently, the Austin Chronicle, two UT law professors and a cold-blooded criminal think otherwise.

I'm always interested to read Chronicle-type articles that criticize the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty, but then somehow ignore the fact that a jury a) found him guilty of a capital crime b) decided he was a future danger; c) determined that he DID anticipate that someone would be killed and d) that there was NO MITIGATING EVIDENCE that justified a life sentence as opposed to death. If you read the Chrinicle's version of the facts, then the court of criminal appeals would have had no choice but to reverse for insufficient evidence on every single element. Somehow, the evidence at trial convinced twelve people that death was the correct sentence. Notice how none of them were asked their opinion of the case for the article.

Take this for what it's worth: the biased opinion of a prosecutor whose journalism degree is well over ten years old.

I presume that this article ran on the opinion page, or at least on the op-ed page. Of the entire lengthy discourse, one ... count'em! one ... attribution to a prosecutor or someone backing the prosecution side appears. There isn't even the pretense of an effort to present both sides of the story. Back when we carved stories in stone and used antiquated ideas like the inverted pyramid and the appearance of impartiality, a reporter would've been sentenced to years of writing obituaries and court records reports for failing to get the other side of the story or for including positive assertions of fact that had no attribution (e.g., "so-and-so said").

The organized bar takes a routine hit for failing to rein in abuses by lawyers (and, of course, the worst of the lot -- rabid prosecutors). Where is the uproar demanding that the Society of Professional Jouralists right the ship and restore some measure of objectivity in stories that are labeled "news"? Are journalism schools teaching that bias in the interest of "social justice" is acceptable now?

All this points to the wonderful irony of the petulent criticism the mainstream media levels at Fox News.

Let the brethren say "amen!" Where's the aspirin?

Having the "good" fortune to have had the same publication and the same author do a series of articles on one of my cases, I can assure you that the "prosecution side" or our perspective has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

When the articles about my case ran, I might, but usually would not get a message from said reporter that was along these lines, "Ms. Tanner, I've written a story about the X case and I have a couple of questions for you. My deadline is in 30 minutes."
Now exactly how much of the "prosecution side" do they really care about if they only think to talk to your side 30 minutes before it is printed?

I always got a kick out of the fact that they'd boil my week's worth of punishment evidence that consisted of 6 brutal rapes, some remarkably consistent w/ the rape/murder for which the bad guy had been convicted, down to (and I'm paraphrasing here) "the state put on evidence at punishment of several allegations by other women."

Send some of that aspirin this way!

I have read several articles in recent years in the Austin Chronicle that exhibited little, if any, fairness towards the prosecutors targeted in their articles. The last one I read, about the fine people in the Williamson County District Attorneys office, was so far from the truth that if it were a book it would have to kept in the "fiction" section.

But you are danged if you do consent to interview and danged if you don't. If you do give an interview, rest assured you would be heavily edited, and if you don't give an interview, then they slam you for that.

Lisa's post is telling: If they are calling the prosecutor 30 minutes before deadline, there is no interest in being fair. If they boil down a weeks worth of compelling punishment evidence as she indicated, there is no interest in fairness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Brumley:
I presume that this article ran on the opinion page, or at least on the op-ed page.

---

You don't get the Austin Chronicle, do you?

The Austin Chronicle has good entertainment listings, but their features are little more than opinion pieces (and windows into the minds of potential jurors). I remember reading a particularly irresponsible article they published a few years ago that stated that MDMA is a harmless drug, and that encouraged MDMA use.

quote:

---

..."everyone is caught in the net" as "was intended" by the prosecutors, without the burden of proving specific criminal involvement. "Just understand the source, and their objective, which was to make [liability] easier to prove. ... It is much too broad."

---

The writer would have his readers believe that the statute is some grotesque creation of a bloodthirsty order of lazy prosecutors, people so besotted with sloth and blood lust they must fashion an "easy" way to kill defendants. The statute and its notion of in-for-a-penny/in-for-a-pound approach to party liability is nothing new in western law. Remember, Charles Manson never left the Spahn Ranch on the nights of the murders.

I'll bet every one of us has no-filed, recommended no-bills for or out right dismissed cases involving maimed or dead citizens because our duty demanded it and without regard to any supposed "factual innocence" of the defendant. We dismiss cases when a defendant is factually as guilty as sin because it is the right thing to do.To have some one who doesn't have the first idea what it means to be a prosecutor publish such drivel is maddening.

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 02-11-05 at .]

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 02-12-05 at .]

Does anyone have a copy of the opinion by the Court of Criminal Appeals in this case? I was able to find that the case was affirmed in June 99, but the CCA site does not have access and Westlaw for some reason does not have this case listed at all.

A web search did locate several websites and articles about the case on anti-death penalty sites. Even these sites noted that Foster was a member of the Black Disciples (a street gang) and one of the sites said that he was on probation at the time for shooting two other people (???) While I can't vouch for any of this, the fact that it appears on death penalty opposition sites would suggest that the truth must be worse, not better.

I'd be interested in seeing the actual facts that were presented to the jury in this case.

This thread, particularly Wes' posting, got me to thinking, maybe our webmaster should create a new general forum entitled "Just the Facts," "What Really Happened," "The Truth," or something along those lines.
The forum could be dedicated to cases in which the press has printed some earth shattering expose on yet another "innocent" who's in for a long, long time, or awaiting the needle.
We could do a link to the story, then the prosecutor(s) who handled the case or is familiar with it could tell us all what the evidence really was, why he's really not so innocent, what the reporter left out, what's in the public record that the reporter could have reported on but chose not to, and so on.

I know whenever I read some story like the one that started this thread, my immediate reaction is that I'd sure like to get the real story from the prosecutor.
Just a thought.....

David Brooks, a conservative columnist for The New York Times, said yes before a sold-out crowd of about 700 Wednesday at Texas Christian University. Mark Shields, a nationally syndicated liberal columnist, said no.

Details.

Hehehe - they quoted "Brooks" and "Shields." Kinda like Fred Couples and Davis Love pairing up for golf. (Adolescent humor aside, that was an interesting article.)