W. T. F.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/11/12-000-days-later-texas-still-wont-release-jerry-hartfield-from-custody/281395/
Quote12,000 Days Later, Texas Still Won't Release Jerry Hartfield From Custody
In 1980, the Texas courts determined that Hartfield deserved a new trial. Instead, he got another 33 years in prison without a valid conviction. Today, state lawyers still say he merits no relief.
You may or may not remember the remarkable story of Jerry Hartfield. He is the Texas man who has been languishing in prison now for nearly 12,000 days—more than 33 years—even though his murder conviction and life sentence were overturned and a new trial was ordered in his case in 1980. He is the man who fell through the cracks of a justice system still struggling to rectify its monumental error—and who is still falling.
In June, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, with a great deal of prodding from the federal courts, confirmed that Hartfield was currently in custody for no good reason—under penalty of no "conviction or sentence," the state judges ruled. And yet he still has not been released. Instead, prosecutors intend to retry him and are fighting to keep him in prison pending that retrial. What kind of trial? A trial at which there is likely to be precious little physical evidence against the defendant because, his attorneys say, it may have been lost over time.
Facing a retrial he could win, Hartfield says he is entitled to get help now, today, because his constitutional right to a speedy trial has long since been violated. If the Sixth Amendment means anything anymore, the defense says, it means that the state must try a man at some point before he has spent a third of a century behind bars for no legitimate reason. He should be immediately released from custody, they say, even if prosecutors want to re-try him for a murder they say he committed in 1977.
Texas cannot—and thankfully does not—dispute that Hartfield has a right to argue that his speedy trial right has been violated. But state lawyers are blocking an immediate review of that issue by arguing that he must make his claim by filing a regular motion in his newly pending retrial case—and that he cannot appeal such a ruling until after that retrial. Having been chastised in this case by the state's highest criminal court, that is to say, Texas wants to make Hartfield wait another year or two before he gets to even ask a higher court to be freed.
In its new court filings, the state cites case after case for the proposition that Hartfield's lawyers have made the wrong procedural path to help their client. But there is no case in Texas—or evidently anywhere else—that any lawyer has cited that even remotely tracks the egregious facts of this case. Texas has screwed up so royally, has so long violated the constitutional rights of this man, that there is literally no dispositive legal precedent state lawyers can cite to help them justify his continuing confinement.
On Tuesday, nearly six months after the highest criminal court in Texas acknowledged the wrong done to Hartfield, there will be a hearing in the case held by the trial judge who presumably will write the next chapter of this sad story. Eventually he will issue a ruling, which the losing side then will appeal, which will generate a new round of briefing and many more months (or even years) of delay. And every new day this man spends in custody pending his retrial, every new day the state lags in remedying this manifest error, represents a new violation of law.
If Jerry Hartfield were a rich man, or a white man, or a savvy man, or a man living near the nation's media centers, he long ago would have become an international cause celebre. There would be public protests and earnest letters to Texas officials from civil libertarians and concerned politicians. There would be emergency federal court motions. There would be television coverage. There would be a constant clamoring to fix this mistake. Hartfield now is 57 years old and had his original sentence been upheld he could have been paroled by now.
But Jerry Hartfield is a poor man, a black man, a man with an IQ once registered at 51, and he is stuck in the middle of a criminal justice system in a state that still can be medieval in its treatment of such men. And so the same authority that has imprisoned him unlawfully for 33 years can argue in court with a straight face that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals didn't mean what it wrote when it wrote that Hartfield could seek the relief he has requested in the manner in which his attorneys have chosen.
Don't mess with Texas.
The people responsible should get the same punishment they doled out.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2013, 05:44:45 PM
The people responsible should get the same punishment they doled out.
Well, they do live in Texas, isn't that enough?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2013, 06:43:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2013, 05:44:45 PM
The people responsible should get the same punishment they doled out.
Well, they do live in Texas, isn't that enough?
2nd greatest state in the Union.
The wheels of justice turn slowly.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2013, 06:43:30 PM
Well, they do live in Texas, isn't that enough?
Don't knock it till you go there. I love Texas. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on November 25, 2013, 07:38:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2013, 06:43:30 PM
Well, they do live in Texas, isn't that enough?
Don't knock it till you go there. I love Texas. :cool:
:yucky:
Sometimes I wonder what has to be going through the mind of lawyers defending such an abomination. Surely they have mirrors in their home that they have to look in occasionally?
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 25, 2013, 06:44:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2013, 06:43:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2013, 05:44:45 PM
The people responsible should get the same punishment they doled out.
Well, they do live in Texas, isn't that enough?
2nd greatest state in the Union.
Yes, but they left Mexico a long time ago.
There is only one good thing about Texas:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fc8%2FUSS_Texas-5.jpg&hash=9151ed3be7078b515c5a7a69cc8fb255d9d78458)
Well, that and I have a soft spot for the Houston Texans.
I had an uncle who served on the USS Texas. :showoff:
Respect to the battleship sailors.
Got lots of good stories from the last time I visited with him (before he passed away). He lied about his age to join the Navy (at 16 years old...he died just a few years ago...had cradle-robbed my dad's sister). Served in the Atlantic on the Texas before we got into the war, and through Operation Torch.
He also told me how they made hooch from coconuts in the ventilation ducts (after it moved over to the Pacific theatre). :P
You know you've played too much silent Hunter when your reaction to a battleship picture is trying to estimate AoB to get a firing solution.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 25, 2013, 09:26:10 PM
You know you've played too much silent Hunter when your reaction to a battleship picture is trying to estimate AoB to get a firing solution.
Or you are sitting in a waterfront restaurant in Seattle estimating the width of Puget Sound by estimating the distance to a ferry using its mast height. :whistle:
For some reason I didn't have much success estimating distances with in-game tools. Fortunately you could usually make do with AoB and speed. AoB I guessed and speed was easy to determine if you set course to some place in front of the target and noted the time it took it to cross the vertical line in the scope.
Interesting story, which is a bit more complicated than the journalistic blurbs might suggest (no surprise).
Hartfield was convicted of murdering a woman at a bus station and sentenced to death. On appeal, his attorney claimed that the trial court committed error by striking from the jury (for cause) a prospective juror who expressed some unease about the death penalty, but stated that she would answer jury questions based on the evidence. Under the standards applied by the US Supreme Court at that time, Texas could not apply the death penalty to Hatfield without violating the Constitution. Texas could either reduce the sentence to life imprisonment or order a new trial. However, Texas courts at that time did not have the power to commute sentences on their own authority. The options available to the prosecution were either to convince the court to change its mind on the constitutional question in a rehearing or to get the governor to commute the setence. So in October 1980 the prosecutors made a motion for a rehearing and in the alternative sought additional time to make a commutation request to the governor. The court granted the rehearing request a month later.
It is at this point that the problem for the prosecutors arose. Because they had an opportunity for a rehearing that might have affirmed the death penalty conviction, they didn't take advantage of the alternative of getting the governor to commute the sentence. The rehearing didn't take place for until 1983. The State lost, and the appeals court reaffirmed the ruling calling for a new trial. At that point, the prosecutors ran to the governor and got him to commute Hartfield's sentence to life. Problem was - Hartfield's conviction had been vacated back in 1980 and the time to commute passed back then. By 1983, it was too late to solve this problem via commutation of sentence.
IMO it would not be unfair to characterize this as a technicality. There was no constitutional problem with Hartfield's conviction, just the sentence of death. And the governor did fix the sentencing problem by commuting him to life. Unfortunately for Texas, the fix was not timely. And that matters. Defendants lose appeal rights all the time for failing to comply with strict and sometimes arcane timing rules. Under the rule of law, it is essential that the states be held to the same standards of conduct.
None this background excuses what is happening currently - Texas now knows there is no way that they can lawfully convict and hold Hartfield, but continue to put procedural roadblocks in his way just for the purpose of delay.