Texas Executes Mexican

[warpedskydiver 0]

It all depends on circumstances really.

In some cases, not much different, in other cases, as different as can possibly be.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>I was under the impression that there has to be a LEGAL BASIS for an appeal filing to be accepted.

What, do you think the clerk discrminates documents, accepting or denying them? When you appeal you simply file a notice of appeal with the clerk, then file your appeal memorandum in a timely manor, you pay your fees and do all the things you have to, this is called, "perfecting" your appeal.

The other side, the state/feds, or in a civil matter the state or the other party or parties have to file their answer and it goes on.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..Otherwise, for every conviction there would be an appeal. For every appeal denied, there would be an appeal to the next highest court.

You can appeal a civil traffic ticket. Everything but things like small claims cases, which are binding arbitration, and other matters where you waive normal civil procedural rights are appealable.

As for every criminal case being appealed, ~95% are plea bargained, so there is no appeal. You can file for post conviction relief, a similar but different animal. You should drop your, "know it all" attitudes and learn the system with an open mind, odds are that you would change your position on some things.

And actually the state can appeal an acquittal, but not for the case in question, just for procedural or other issues the prosecutor wants to go their way in future events.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>An appellate court is a court that hears cases on appeal from another court. Depending on the particular legal rules that apply to each circumstance, a party to a court case who is unhappy with the result might be able to challenge that result in an appellate court on specific grounds. These grounds typically could include errors of law, fact, or procedure (in the United States, due process).

Basically what I wrote. The judge is the finder of law in a jury trial, jury the finder of fact and judge the finder of both in a bench trial. The judge also determines all procedural interpretation and application, so all of these things can be appealed upon. How about if the cops didn't mirandize the suspect turned defendant and the judge allowed for that error? You would appeal the judges decision based upon the cops actions. If you're looking for hard and fast rules in the law, forget it.

Another thing for the passage above is that the appeal may be heard only on record, no right to personally argue the case.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In different jurisdictions, appellate courts are also called appeals courts, courts of appeals, superior courts, or supreme courts...

The trial court is the lowest court of record, they are generally called the Superior Court in most cases, but in NY they are called the Supreme Court. Watch LAw and Order and you'll see what I mean. Th heirarchy in my state is like this from lowest to highest:

- Justice Court (county jurisdiction)
- Municipal or city court (city jurisdiction)
(above two are identical in heirarchy)

- Superior Court
- Court of Appeals
- State Supreme Court
___________________________

- Then a maze of fed dist courts to the SCOTUS

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A good example of this is the U.S. Supreme Court in which at least four justices must agree to hear the case if there is a constitutional issue.


Right, you have the right to file an appeal, but the court has to decide to hear the case in a process called a Writ of Certiorari, or a cert, which means to certify the case.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>In tort, equity, or other civil matters either party to a previous case may file an appeal. In criminal matters, however, the state or prosecution generally has no appeal as of right.

And that's wrong, the state can appeal, but it won't effect the out come of that particular case, just procedure for future cases. Double jeopardy prevents an acquittal to be overturned, just procedure for future cases.


Dude, you need to quit acting as if you have a clue about the legal system, I'm not a lawyer, never been and this stuff is off the top of my head from previous education. Wik is wrong about the state not appealling a criminal acquittal, so all you know is in whatever you Google.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is certainly a debatable concept. It's not like you can claim that that was written into the Constitution; nor can you claim that 100% of the people of the U.S. agree with that principle. While I abhor the concept of an innocent man being imprisoned, I find it very difficult to accept the notion of a known guilty man going free to continue his crimes. Who volunteers to be his next victim?


No, you're showing your Communistic side. America was founded on the principal of individual rights, feeling that if every individual is guaranteed rights that the whole will also enjoy these. In Communism, they subscribe to Utilitarianism where they move for the group, feeling that the good of the group outweighs the good of teh individual. American Conservatism has assumed this concept that was embraced by early Communists.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Quote

When I started thinking about the death penalty some time ago, I eventually came up with a fairly simple logical progression as to why I don't think such a penalty is compatible with a decent justice system. It goes like this:

Humans are fallible.
The justice system is a human institution
Therefore errors will be made.

LoGicAL FaLLaCy

You cannot conclude that errors will be made; only that they could be made.

'Errors could be made' means that the probability of an error is not zero. On a sufficiently long timescale, those errors will eventually occur.

(And anyway, can you really find me an example of a justice system that hasn't made errors?)

Quote

Quote

Errors in a system which includes the death penalty will eventually lead to the execution of the innocent.

Again, LoGicAL FaLLaCy. All you can state definitively is that they could.

As above. On a sufficiently long timescale, any possible error will occur.

Quote

Quote

Using the death penalty therefore carries an acceptance of the risk of executing the innocent.
Knowingly risking the execution of the innocent is incompatible with justice.

The first part of this is fine; the second is not. There are lots of things that are done under color of the law's authority that have the potential to violate the rights or the lives of innocent people. But knowing that an imperfect man in an imperfect system is all we'll ever have to work with, we don't just shut down the system because we can't risk innocents.

Can you think of a greater violation of an individual's rights than to be wrongly executed? True, the system will always be imperfect, we could try and make the system less imperfect by eliminating its potential to make the most egregious errors, and advocates of the death penalty accept by default a much higher margin for error.

Quote

We arm cops, knowing that we may see cops mistakenly shoot and kill innocent people. Does that mean arming cops is "incompatible with justice"?

Non-sequitur. Police do not impose the judgement of the state.

Quote

Your understanding of logic needs work. I appreciate your effort and your attempt, but it needs work. You don't have it all pegged just yet.

Well, thanks for the backhanded appreciation, but I'm afraid your critique of my logic seems rather less than convincing.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Other than that, and aside from the fact that I'm opposed to the death penalty altogether, I don't think there's any doubt that medellin deserved to be executed. Plenty of prisoners on death row have committed crimes that deserve it. Sadly though, too many have NOT, as in they're completely innocent, and that's the main reason I oppose it altogether.

If you can bring yourself to say that some murderers have "deserved" the death penalty, then it doesn't like it's appropriate for you to use the phrase "oppose it altogether." That doesn't sound like "altogether," to me, because of the fact that you can conceive of someone who "should" be executed (i.e. "deserve it").

It appears that you oppose it because of the whole "innocents caught up in it and wrongly put to death" thing. I would have thought that "altogether" would imply that no matter whether it could be administered with zero-flaw correctness you would still oppose it.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

I guess you lose that one. Maybe we should have bet a dollar.

Your source did not contradict what I said. I think you'll find by reading the source that it covered judicial appeals in general, not those specific to the US or to criminal convictions. In the US, everyone has the right to appeal a criminal conviction.

Then cite a fucking source for your assertion! Surely, if that is something so universal that it applies across the entire United States, it's gotta be codified somewhere in some document that governs all 50.

Here's more of what Wikipedia's article said (same article as before):
Many jurisdictions recognize two types of appeals, particularly in the criminal context.[2][3][4] The first is the traditional "direct" appeal in which the appellant files an appeal with the next higher court of review. The second is the collateral appeal or post-conviction petition, in which the petitioner-appellant files the appeal in a court of first instance--usually the court that tried the case.

The key distinguishing factor between direct and collateral appeals is that the former only reviews evidence that was presented in the trial court, but the latter allows review of evidence dehors the record: depositions, affidavits, and witness statements that did not come in at trial. The standard for post-conviction relief is high, typically requiring the petitioner to demonstrate that the evidence presented was not available in the usual course of trial discovery.

Relief in post-conviction is rare and is most often found in capital or violent felony cases. The typical scenario involves an incarcerated defendant locating DNA evidence demonstrating the defendant's actual innocence.

The article establishes a high standard for succeeding on a criminal appeal. Does that sound like a scenario in which they would agree to hear any and every case that someone didn't like the verdict of, rather than those where a claim can be made that something about the trial was done wrong? Hardly.

Quote

Quote

I will pay the bet, but I never agreed to pay anyone but you. If you want the dollar, PM me your PayPal address and I shall send it. If you wish to, you can then donate the dollar to the ACLU. If I don't receive a PM from you by about mid-week, I will assume that you have no interest in pursuing this petty matter and will consider you to have dropped it.

My integrity won't be impugned once you have to admit that I paid you the dollar (even though I dispute that you actually answered my post in good faith). The dollar really will be to shut you up, rather than to admit that I lost the bet, because that, too, is debatable. But I did not agree to be forwarding any donations to anyone. I bet YOU--not the ACLU.

Since you seem so intent on mereceiving the $1, within the next few days I'll PM an email address where you can send $1 plus PayPal fees (since you are so concerned about me receiving the payment, not anyone else, such as ACLU or PayPal).

[birdlike 0]

Quote

as is murder most of the time.

if you need someone killed to deal with a violent death of a loved one, how different are you emotionally from some of the murderers?

That would clearly have to do with the fact that unless someone committed a killing that wronged you or your loved one, you would not be going out looking for anyone to be killed. The murderer brings the situation about. For example, I would never kill anyone or want anyone killed unless a person killed someone I love. But after his execution, my involvement with killing stops. The murderer, well, after the killing of my loved one, he would probably be open, or maybe even eager, to continue murdering people for whatever purposes he likes to, as for furthering his criminal career.

So, the BIG difference between the murderers and the executioners is that the executioners kill only those who are guilty of murder, and never seek the killing of anyone else absent a murderer who needs to be punished.

How could this not be clear to you?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

The fact that you could not wrap your mind around that one is not my fault, or my problem.

I understand the point you were trying to make. I also understand why your logic was faulty. It's unfortunate that you do not.

Whatever, dude. The logic was beyond reproach; the problem is that you just didn't like it, so you lie and call it faulty. C'est la guerre.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>I was under the impression that there has to be a LEGAL BASIS for an appeal filing to be accepted.

What, do you think the clerk discrminates documents, accepting or denying them? When you appeal you simply file a notice of appeal with the clerk, then file your appeal memorandum in a timely manor, you pay your fees and do all the things you have to, this is called, "perfecting" your appeal.

So, that guarantees you that the appelate case WILL be heard by the court?

Quote

As for every criminal case being appealed, ~95% are plea bargained, so there is no appeal. You can file for post conviction relief, a similar but different animal. You should drop your, "know it all" attitudes and learn the system with an open mind, odds are that you would change your position on some things.

Nothing wrong with that advice, and in fact (although you may not be inclined to believe it) I am generally quite open to utilizing it. Just not in this case--particularly because our friend who is asserting the contrary has not stepped up to show so much as the first citation from even a quasi-authoritative source to back his statements up. He hasn't even claimed to be a lawyer! Why are his qualifications--or yours--any better than mine? Unless you are a lawyer, or unless he is, why is my layman's view of this worth any less than either of yours?

Quote

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>An appellate court is a court that hears cases on appeal from another court. Depending on the particular legal rules that apply to each circumstance, a party to a court case who is unhappy with the result might be able to challenge that result in an appellate court on specific grounds. These grounds typically could include errors of law, fact, or procedure (in the United States, due process).

Basically what I wrote.

Doesn't appear to be. That section says that the appelant MIGHT be able to challenge the result in an appelate court. That does not mean he is guaranteed to be able to challenge the result in court. And being able to FILE to have the appeal heard may result in the application being turned down, no? Or does the court have to grant a full hearing on a case that has no merit, just because a convict wanted to take a crack at a reversal that his case does not merit?

Quote

The judge is the finder of law in a jury trial, jury the finder of fact and judge the finder of both in a bench trial. The judge also determines all procedural interpretation and application, so all of these things can be appealed upon. How about if the cops didn't mirandize the suspect turned defendant and the judge allowed for that error?

Dude, are you not paying attention?! That's exactly what I was fucking talking about! The appellant needs some LEGAL REASON to be CLAIMING that the prior court proceeding erred! You just supported what I've been saying all along, because your example jibes perfectly with what I was saying. But do you also assert that any ol' convict can get an appeals court to HEAR HIS APPEAL just because he got a guilty verdict and says to himself, "Aw, man, that sucks!"?

Quote

And that's wrong, the state can appeal, but it won't effect the out come of that particular case, just procedure for future cases. Double jeopardy prevents an acquittal to be overturned, just procedure for future cases.


Dude, you need to quit acting as if you have a clue about the legal system, I'm not a lawyer, never been and this stuff is off the top of my head from previous education.

Then without citations, your word is about as worthless as mine, I guess. We are two layment arguing what we think we know. Kind of a stalemate, or do you really have the hubris to claim that your layman's opinion, without anything to independently back it up, is superior to mine? I mean, at least I cited Wikipedia.

And I should take your word, when you use the incorrect homophone "effect" in a sentence where you should have used "affect"? And when you made two words out of "outcome"? Oooh, confidence-inspiring!

Quote

Wik is wrong about the state not appealling a criminal acquittal, so all you know is in whatever you Google.

And what you know came from...? OH, that's right, you haven't even said.

Quote

No, you're showing your Communistic side.

Ah, this derives from your uncited reservoir of knowledge again, I take it. The one that thinks that Communism is a system of legal procedure, and not an economic system.

Quote

America was founded on the principal of individual rights, feeling that if every individual is guaranteed rights that the whole will also enjoy these.

I think you mean "principle." But who am I to challenge you on what you know. Surely your intellect is infallible.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

You cannot conclude that errors will be made; only that they could be made.

'Errors could be made' means that the probability of an error is not zero. On a sufficiently long timescale, those errors will eventually occur.

Your mistake is in thinking that because the possibility of errors exists, that they MUST happen. That is simply proved in the logical construction we are dealing with. It's simply not; I don't know how else I should need to say it.

Quote

(And anyway, can you really find me an example of a justice system that hasn't made errors?)

No, of course I cannot. That still does not prove your assertion. You have caused me to admit that in justice systems where "errors could be made," they have been made. Still, nothing about that is cause to insist that errors must be made just because their potential exists.

Quote

Quote

Errors in a system which includes the death penalty will eventually lead to the execution of the innocent.

Again, LoGicAL FaLLaCy. All you can state definitively is that they could.

As above. On a sufficiently long timescale, any possible error will occur.

[normiss 868]

"How could this not be clear to you? "

Are you serious???
Peoples opinions aren't crystal clear, nor do others have to agree with them. Your efforts to explain your opinion doesn't help much either.

[fallinfast 0]

I remember these GANG bangers, and they got just what they deserve, just a little late.

It's adios MOFO

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Then cite a fucking source for your assertion!

Lucky did a pretty good job describing the process.

Quote

Here's more of what Wikipedia's article said (same article as before):
Many jurisdictions recognize two types of appeals, particularly in the criminal context.[2][3][4] The first is the traditional "direct" appeal in which the appellant files an appeal with the next higher court of review. The second is the collateral appeal or post-conviction petition, in which the petitioner-appellant files the appeal in a court of first instance--usually the court that tried the case.

The key distinguishing factor between direct and collateral appeals is that the former only reviews evidence that was presented in the trial court, but the latter allows review of evidence dehors the record: depositions, affidavits, and witness statements that did not come in at trial. The standard for post-conviction relief is high, typically requiring the petitioner to demonstrate that the evidence presented was not available in the usual course of trial discovery.

Relief in post-conviction is rare and is most often found in capital or violent felony cases. The typical scenario involves an incarcerated defendant locating DNA evidence demonstrating the defendant's actual innocence.

It's amazing how that had nothing to do with the question at hand.

Quote

The article establishes a high standard for succeeding on a criminal appeal.

Who said there wasn't a high standard of success? That does not change the fact that virtually every criminal conviction in the US can be appealed. That's basic primary school Civics.

Quote

Yeah, um, show me where I agreed to pay any fees in connection with the dollar I "lost" to you.

You insisted on paying only to me. Either you will pay the money to third parties or you won't. It makes no difference to me, but you can't have it both ways. Besides, it's not may responsibility to pay fees associated with payment.

Quote

As far as I'm concerned, all I owe you is a dollar, (if even that), not the cost of getting it to you, so maybe you should just come and visit to collect it, I dunno.

Yes, you owe me a dollar. Thus, it is your responsibility to pay any associated fees involved with payment.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The logic was beyond reproach;

I see you understand logic as well as you understand the appeals process.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[freakyrat 1]

This guy was a vicious scumbag. When he was approached by Fox26 News in Houston after he was arrested he viciously attacked the reporter and kicked his camera.

When he was arraigned in Judge Mike McSpaddens court room someone in the Harris County jail wrote F___in Asshole on the back of his jail uniform with a magic marker or what appeared to be red lipstick. This clearly showed on TV during his arraignment.

He got what he deserved.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

When he was approached by Fox26 News in Houston after he was arrested he viciously attacked the reporter and kicked his camera.

OMG.... I finally see the REAL reson he was executed... and the fringe right bloodlust is running so hat.

The guy had the audacity to ATTACK FAUX NEWS.....

Yup that needs to be a"he needed killin" offence in Texas.. right there.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

This guy was a vicious scumbag. When he was approached by Fox26 News in Houston after he was arrested he viciously attacked the reporter and kicked his camera.

When he was arraigned in Judge Mike McSpaddens court room someone in the Harris County jail wrote F___in Asshole on the back of his jail uniform with a magic marker or what appeared to be red lipstick. This clearly showed on TV during his arraignment.

He got what he deserved.

I'm convinced this guy and his buddies are trash and society is a better place w/o them, but WHY IS IT THAT YOU PRO-DP GUYS REFUSE TO EVEN ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT A SYSTEM THAT EXECUTES WILL IN ALL LIKELYHOOD KILL AN INNOCENT PERSON? .......just wondering.

[normiss 868]

they don't care.

[freakyrat 1]

You folks would have had to watch the news about this scumbag and the heartache that he put these two families through by his actions especially Jennifer's father Randy.

It wouldn't matter if he kicked a camera from KTRK (ABC) KHOU (CBS) or NBC or whatever. The guy had no respect fro human life and the prisoners in the Harris County jail did not take to kindly to him either. It's to bad he couldn't have been executed much sooner without all the appeals.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

This guy was a vicious scumbag. When he was approached by Fox26 News in Houston after he was arrested he viciously attacked the reporter and kicked his camera.

When he was arraigned in Judge Mike McSpaddens court room someone in the Harris County jail wrote F___in Asshole on the back of his jail uniform with a magic marker or what appeared to be red lipstick. This clearly showed on TV during his arraignment.

He got what he deserved.

I'm convinced this guy and his buddies are trash and society is a better place w/o them, but WHY IS IT THAT YOU PRO-DP GUYS REFUSE TO EVEN ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT A SYSTEM THAT EXECUTES WILL IN ALL LIKELYHOOD KILL AN INNOCENT PERSON? .......just wondering.

WHY DO YOU ANTI-DP GUYS REFUSE TO EVEN ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT AN INNOCENT PERSON WILL BE SENT TO PRISON AND KILLED THERE??? ..... just wondering.

Mistakes happen, even with the best of intentions. I'll guarantee that my scenario above has happened more often than yours.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

You folks would have had to watch the news about this scumbag and the heartache that he put these two families through by his actions especially Jennifer's father Randy.

It wouldn't matter if he kicked a camera from KTRK (ABC) KHOU (CBS) or NBC or whatever. The guy had no respect fro human life and the prisoners in the Harris County jail did not take to kindly to him either. It's to bad he couldn't have been executed much sooner without all the appeals.

So, the US is entitled to break it's own laws if the defendant is a scumbag?

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Then cite a fucking source for your assertion!

Lucky did a pretty good job describing the process.

Well, what he did was give his view of it. Are you truly unable to understand that what he did and what you have done does not count as "citation" any more than anyone's lay opinions?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, um, show me where I agreed to pay any fees in connection with the dollar I "lost" to you.

You insisted on paying only to me. Either you will pay the money to third parties or you won't. It makes no difference to me, but you can't have it both ways. Besides, it's not may responsibility to pay fees associated with payment.

Fine, do you want to send me a self-addressed, stamped envelope and I'll mail you your buck?

I am not on the hook for anything more than one dollar -- and I dispute even that, because the reply you claimed won the bet was not what I consider to be a qualifying "good faith" reply.

Quote

Quote

As far as I'm concerned, all I owe you is a dollar, (if even that), not the cost of getting it to you, so maybe you should just come and visit to collect it, I dunno.

Yes, you owe me a dollar. Thus, it is your responsibility to pay any associated fees involved with payment.

That's patently absurd. If it were the case, I would have bet you "a dollar, plus all associated costs or fees involved with payment."

No wonder you are not following the basic logic of the discussion at hand.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

The logic was beyond reproach;

I see you understand logic as well as you understand the appeals process.

No worse than you understand the "show me something--anything--that backs up your assertions, especially when asked repeatedly" process.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

I'm convinced this guy and his buddies are trash and society is a better place w/o them, but WHY IS IT THAT YOU PRO-DP GUYS REFUSE TO EVEN ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT A SYSTEM THAT EXECUTES WILL IN ALL LIKELYHOOD KILL AN INNOCENT PERSON? .......just wondering.

I'm wondering why you anti-dp guys are ALSO not addressing the subject of this thread, which is NOT whether an innocent would be executed, but whether the guy should have gotten his stupid consular phone call or whether that doesn't really fuckin' matter.

Or are you saying you STILL insist that this guy might not have been guilty of the murders?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[gemini 0]

Quote

Or are you saying you STILL insist that this guy might not have been guilty of the murders?

Apparently this point is not important, only that someone, anyone else on death row might be innocent. Let's let them all go free just in case one might be innocent!

Go ahead flame me if you want to, but in Texas there are plenty of people who got life terms who are walking the streets today after as little as 7 years behind bars. And there are a few of those scumbags who have killed again. Life does not necessarily mean a lifetime!

Blue skies,

Jim