Is anyone else as disturbed and disgusted with what is going on in Austin with Lame-duck judge Charlie Baird convening a "court of inquiry" regarding the Cameron Todd Willingham case? It appears to me that Judge Baird has no authority to convene this hearing and is not even bothering to follow the dictates of the statute regulating courts of inquiry (notifying his administrative presiding judge, filing an affidavit, etc.). This looks like grandstanding to me. Of course, the result of this "inquiry" is foregone.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/courts/entries/2010/09/27/judge_baird_to_hold_hearing_in.html?cxntfid=blogs_austin_legal

Anyone think "kangaroo court?"

He's giving kangaroo courts a bad name.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shane Phelps:
It appears to me that Judge Baird has no authority to convene this hearing and is not even bothering to follow the dictates of the statute regulating courts of inquiry (notifying his administrative presiding judge, filing an affidavit, etc.).

---

There are three things you should always remember when it comes to opposition to the death penalty:

(1) The ends justify the means.
(2) The ends justify the means.
(3) The ends justify the means.

Thanks for calling out this charade. I've not seen any questions about the propriety of the proceedings in the papers I've read. Funny how that works.

Apparently Judge Baird does not remember how death penalty cases are handled in the Court of Criminal Appeals although he was once a judge on that court. Although the Office of the State Prosecuting Attorney is not involved in such cases, Willingham's lawyers and Judge Baird think they were somehow involved in the Willingham case. It should also be noted that attorneys with the post-conviction proceeding section of the Texas Attorney General's Office who handle federal proceedings in death penalty cases were not included.

Of course, it is not an accident that the hearing was scheduled to occur less than a month before the Governorial election. Clearly, this is merely another attempt to smear Governor Perry.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purported premise of this hearing in this Court of Inquiry (under CCP 52.01) to determine if an offense has been committed against the laws of the State of Texas? According to the newspaper article that I saw, the proposed offense is official oppression. Under Penal Code �39.03, that's a Class A misdemeanor.

Here's my question: Does the 2 year statute of limitations for misdemeanors just not matter? Aren't we talking about an offense, if there was one, that occurred at a minimum of 6 years ago when this man was executed?

Maybe there's something missing in my analysis due to the lack of details in the newspaper?

Apparently it's now appropriate for judges to decide on their own that a recusal motion is unwarranted, instead of referring it to a neutral judge. I wish I'd known that. It would've saved so much time in the past.

The Houston Chronicle reports

The article just says that the judge was "persuaded to stay on the case by arguments presented by attorneys for some surviving relatives of Cameron Todd Willingham." I would love to know what those arguments were.

How do you answer that decision? Mandamus?

Yes. Mandamus is a proper remedy for a judge's failure to recuse himself and/or request a hearing. DeLeon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)

The DA involved apparently left the courtroom immediately after Judge Baird's ruling to file an emergency mandamus with the Third Court. We'll see how quickly they act!

At most, the current inquiry will only result in a finding by Judge Baird that he has probable cause to believe that an offense was committed and entry of a sworn affidavit as to the basis for his belief. He will then be required (if he chooses to do anything) to request his administrative judge to commence something more under Chapter 52.

While all of this proceeding is a great waste of the time of the court, since it will settle nothing, I am not sure any statute prohibits the court from engaging in the proceeding itself. Of course, courts in Travis County usually are not so concerned about events or enforcement of the law outside their geographic jurisdiction. Mandamus cannot be used to force good judgment, just ministerial duties. A complaint under the Code of Judicial Conduct might be a better solution.

The recusal rules may not apply to preliminary hearings on pleadings that failed to invoke any recognized legal procedure to begin with.

I see your point, but a court can't just start holding hearings on anything that takes the judge's fancy. A court has to have jurisdiction to act. It's not so much whether there's anything prohibiting the hearing as whether there's anything allowing it. The only thing that would seem to allow it at this point is the Court of Inquiry process, but the correct procedures haven't been followed for that. There's nothing vesting jurisdiction in Baird's court.

The Third Court of Appeals has stayed the proceedings and is allowing the Innocence Project to respond.

Chalk this up as yet another reason why some call these proceedings "Courts of Injury."

Exactly what more-permanent relief the Third Court may grant will be interesting to see. But, at least they temporarily stopped the shenanigans in the 299th, a/k/a Court of Inquiring Minds. In re Thompson. I am kind of doubtful Goldstein or Orr will be able to cite much precedent for their position.

For your viewing pleasure...tonight on PBS

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/

Get your popcorn ready...

Yeah, right. I'm sure PBS will be at least as objective as The New Yorker and the rest of the mainstream media in their treatment of this case.

Personally, I'll be watching the Texas Rangers in the hope that they can put another spanking on the Yankees. Go Rangers!