The El Paso DA's office got a huge win in the Court of Criminal Appeals today. The CCA ruled that lying is never justified and the lie is not suppressible in a prosecution for aggravated perjury.

This opinion, authored by Judge Cochran, makes it very clear that nothing justifies the lie:

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/034402.htm

The Court of Criminal Appeals reaffirmed its opposition to lying by finding that an inmate had abused the writ by attaching forged documents in support of his postconviction claim:

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/5458801.htm

The Legislature, on the other hand, at least through Sen. Hinojosa, has taken a different view. He filed a bill that would immunize inmates against prosecution for lying in their writs, so long as the lie is a claim of innocence:

Defendant's Right to Lie Bill

You gotta be [*explicative] kidding me? A State Senator is sponsoring a bill that would give an immate immunity for lying?

In this day where the CCA is already overwhelmed with meritless writs, the Senator's bill looks like it will just compound the problem by encouraging more baseless habeas litigation without any negative consequences to lying inmates. The Senator's bill seems to be bad policy if it encourages lies.

The bill also seems fiscally unsound. Consider this: After the inmate files a habeas application, at least one local prosecutor has to file a response. Then the judge has to review the application and the response, then issue a recommended ruling. This ruling, the application, and the State's response, as well as any additional information (indictment, judgment, transcripts, affidavits, exhibits, etc.) is all shipped off to the CCA in Austin. There, someone in the writ department pre-screens the case. After that, I assume the Court itself reviews the case to determine merit. If the application is merely a series of lies, it appears that it would lack merit. Yet before the CCA issues an opinion (even if it is a post-card denial), how many people's time will have been needlessly spent reviewing the application? When our courts are already being asked to cut their budgets 7%, why would a Senator be sponoring legislation designed expressly to promote further unnecessary work and waste precious judicial resources?

All very good questions. Perhaps those questions could be directed to the sponsoring legislator. That same person, last session, pursued a bill that would have prohibited the use of police officer testimony in undercover drug cases unless it was corroborated by independent evidence.

Apparently, in at least one legislator's eyes, the testimony of a police officer is less trustworthy than a convicted felon.

This wealth of information on aggravated perjury will be music to the prosecutors ears over in Comal County.

Their officers, last week, took the stand and admitted to lying under oath in their affidavit to obtain a search warrant.

I would imagine that their testimony is AGGRAVATED perjury. No suppression? Well, that's interesting. Maybe the senator can help these poor officers out also.

Beck, this forum is not for defense attorneys to crow about some case. We get enough of that in and around the courtroom. If you have a point, make it. Otherwise, leave the sound and fury for the bar.