Texas death row inmate set to die for Plano murders after appeal denied
07:10 AM CDT on Tuesday, June 17, 2008

By DIANE JENNINGS / The Dallas Morning News

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied an appeal Monday afternoon from death row inmate Charles Dean Hood, who said his sentence should be set aside because there were rumors the judge in his case was romantically involved with the district attorney.

Judges denied the appeal on procedural grounds, not the merit of the issue, without dissent, saying it was an abuse of the system because it had not been raised earlier.


Details.

[And guess which anti-death penalty law professor/innocent clinic lawyer is once again helping raise old, known issues at the last minute, hoping that media attention will prevail in the absence of actual legal issues? That's right, it's David Dow, the same person who tried to blame the CCA for not taking up his very late claim that lethal injection was unconstitutional.]

Prof. Dow is quoted as saying he was "flabergasted" by the CCA's ruling. As this very issue has been floating around for about a decade, i.e., really is "old news," the public in general and death row inmates in particular should be flabergasted that those who hold themselves out as really concerned about justice in death penalty cases raised such a trite issue at the eleventh hour. It is nothing less than specious to assert that they delayed raising the claim until they had some credible support.

This anything-goes type of work undermines the credibility of his group, impugnes him as an academic, and hurts the chances of inmates with future claims. Why should anyone take him seriously now?

JAS

[This message was edited by JAS on 06-17-08 at .]

Note that there was NO DISSENT from the CCA. None.

Now the DMN has the audacity to chastise the CCA for it's ruling, righteously proclaiming that the court has "failed to uphold the integrity of the justice system."

Editorial

This is absurd.

That's code for the DMN is against the DP and criticizes anyone that fails to further that agenda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JAS:
This anything-goes type of work undermines the credibility of his group, impugnes him as an academic, and hurts the chances of inmates with future claims. Why should anyone take him seriously now?

---

To many in the media and elsewhere, efforts to end the death penalty mean never having to say you're sorry.

So, now a state district judge has overruled the CCA (supported by an ethical judgment by someone from the ABA, another anti-DP group). Stay tuned:

Execution delayed for Texas death row inmate convicted for Plano murders
06:14 PM CDT on Tuesday, June 17, 2008

By DIANE JENNINGS / The Dallas Morning News

After a desperate flurry of filings by defense attorneys, including protests from leading legal ethicists, Charles Dean Hood's execution was halted with only 90 minutes to go Tuesday afternoon. Prosecutors however, immediately filed an appeal in an effort to go forward with the sentence.


Details.

Team Collin County did an excellent job fighting for respect for the Rule of Law. The CCA issued a mandamus, ordering the trial court judge to respect their superior ruling. Unfortunately, the trial judge had recused himself (a bizarre act since done only after withdrawing the death warrant), so a local administrative judge had to reinstate the warrant. That left too little time for TDCJ to carry out a proper execution.

A new warrant and death date will issue. Meanwhile, the actions of the defense attorney and judge seem contrary to professional standards. Shows disrespect for the Rule of Law. A decision on an issue had been made by the highest court in the state. A first year law student knows that a lower court, under any standard of judicial precedent, must respect that decision. Once again, we have seen anti-DP zealots attempt to use the media and their own agenda as a basis for law. That is not law; that is chaos, which is what they prefer to the DP.

But there are signs that the world is righting itself. The NBA title has returned to the Boston Celtics. And the Lakers took a serious beatdown.

Oh yeah, and the first Apple Store has opened in Australia.

And since it appears that anti-DP types have made DP litigation into a game, prosecutors need to study that game and learn to play by those same rules, right? For practice, click here.

[This message was edited by JB on 06-18-08 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 06-18-08 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 06-18-08 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 06-18-08 at .]

Art 43.14 should be changed to read "the sentence shall be executed at any time after the hour of 0001 on the day set for execution, and in the inevent of procedural be immediately upon removal of such delay."


We also need the execution to occur in the county seat in which the crime was committed in a public venue.

"Team Collin County did an excellent job fighting for respect for the Rule of Law."

This gets harder and harder to do in DP cases these days, when people think less and believe whatever they read, including some judges. But here's a little quote to use in your next response, if you like:

"To follow the dictates of justice, when in harmony with the law, must be a pleasure. But to follow the rules of law, in their true spirit, to whatever consequences they may lead, is a duty." Duncan v. Magette, 25 Tex. 245 (1860) (Roberts, J.)

I believe that this gamesmanship will backfire on TDS at some point.

How about change CCP Article 43.14 to read "the sentence shall be executed at any time BETWEEN the hour of 6 p.m. on the day set for the execution AND SUNRISE THE FOLLOWING DAY".

In many sports, when play stops, the clock stops. So, why not have the rule say that time spent ruling on a pointless, last-minute issue doesn't count against the 6 hours allowed for execution?

According to TDS, "What's important to know about" the Hood debacle is that the prosecutors showed an unprecedented level of aggression.

No. Team Collin County did their job protecting a conviction that was attacked at the very last possible minute with a claim that could have been raised YEARS ago. Under the Rule of Law, it is SUPPOSED to be hard to get a stay at this stage of litigation. Any legitimate claims have been handled on appeal or on a state or federal writ, or through the clemency process. How many more opportunities does a defendant need?

When execution is imminent, an inmate can file any sort of claim in any court, via any number of procedural vehicles, and the prosecutor on the case has to file a cohesive response within hours, sometimes minutes, using the proper vehicle and addressing the right court--or years of the appellate process is essentially wasted. This is a big GAME to the so-called specialists who, on their own initiative, "represent" a DR inmate during the execution stage.

What's "important to know" about the case is that personal attacks are the next level to which TDS will stoop to further their anti-DP agenda. They've lost sight of the fact that they are (merely) lawyers representing a client. They step on the backs of DR inmates to further their own politics. In the meanwhile, Hood, pulled back from the brink, only to be returned to the brink hours later, now faces at best more fruitless litigation and an inevitable date with the executioner. Wonder how HE feels about it.

MISCELLANEOUS RULE 08-101 aka The David Dow Rule

Procedures in Death Penalty Cases Involving Requests for Stay of Execution and Related Filings in Texas State Trial Courts and the Court of Criminal Appeals

1. Time Requirements for Habeas Petitions or Other Motions. Inmates sentenced to death who
seek a stay of execution or who wish to file a subsequent writ application or other motion seeking any affirmative relief from, or relating to, a death sentence must exercise reasonable diligence in timely filing such requests. A motion for stay of execution, or any other motion relating to a death sentence, shall be deemed untimely if it is filed less than forty-eight hours before 6:00 p.m. on the scheduled execution date. Thus, a request for a stay of execution filed at 7:00 p.m. on a Monday evening when an execution is scheduled on Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. is untimely.

2. Special Requirements for Untimely Petitions or Other Motions. Counsel who seek to file an
untimely motion for a stay of execution or who wish to file any other untimely motion requesting
affirmative relief in an impending execution case, must attach to the proposed filing a detailed
explanation stating under oath, subject to the penalties of perjury, the reason for the delay and
why counsel found it physically, legally, or factually impossible to file a timely request or
motion. Counsel is required to show good cause for the untimely filing.

3. Sanctions. Counsel who fails to attach a sworn detailed explanation to an untimely filing or
who fails to adequately justify the necessity for an untimely filing shall be sanctioned. Such
sanctions include, but are not limited to, (1) referral to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the
State Bar of Texas; (2) contempt of court; (3) removal from the list of Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Art. 11.071 list of attorneys; (4) restitution of costs incurred by the opposing party; (5) any other sanction allowable under Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.2.

Senior Judge John Nelms of Dallas signed an order setting Charles Dean Hood�s execution for Sept. 10.