So let’s review.
Please summarize the evidence that you contend led to Mr. Cantu’s conviction.
:::hands DrDeth the trophy:::
The amazing thing about that trophy is it was molded from an actual horse’s ass, so it’s very lifelike.
I’ve reread this several times, and I have to conclude that I don’t think you understand the whole concept of bifurcated trials. Cantu was “just convicted for killing Gomez,” or more specifically, convicted solely for the capital crime of murdering Pedro Gomez while committing a burglary. That’s it. He recieved no prison sentence for it. His sentence was death. No evidence of any kind concerning any other crimes, charged or uncharged, was admitted or in any way relevant in the guilt-innocence phase of his trial. I would restate what the evidence at that phase was, but I don’t want to spoil Bricker’s question and would like to hear what you believe it was.
I’d also like to hear it. Alternatively, what I’d like would be for you to describe what the arguments would have been at each stage of the trial, had Moreno recanted prior to the trial. Speculate on what the jury would have decided at each stage, and support your speculation. Each aspect of this answer could be a single sentence.
Daniel
Ask stupid questions much? It’s your cite- your somewhat biased newspaper article sez there was nothing but Moreno’s testimony. But I have no idea what really led to it, as I haven’t talked to the Jurors or read the transcript of the trial- and neither have you. You seem to be basing your arguments on a single newspaper article! :dubious: Have you read the trial transcript or not?
*
It doesn’t really matter what Cantu was convicted of- because this thread and the OP are not about Cantu’s conviction. This thread, this debate is completely about Cantu’s execution- and the prime cause for that* was Cantu’s ADMITTED cold-blooded murderous gunning down of a Police Officer.
IF we are going to execute dudes becuase removing them from Society forever & completely makes Society safer- then executing someone who guns down police officers isn’t an injustice.
What about my question: could you describe how you think the trial would have gone, had Moreno decided not to give his testimony?
Daniel
Nope. But I’ve read the apellate court opinions, which rely upon the trial transcripts. Unfortunately, they are not online, so I can’t link to them; they’re available through Nexis or Westlaw, which are subscription services.
So - Cantu was executed for a crime in which (a) no one died, and (b) was never charged or proved in court against him.
Is that what you’re hanging your hat on now?
I’ve got another cite you might like then: Cantu v. State of Texas, 738 S.W.2d 249 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). Moreno’s eyewitness testimony was the sole evidence linking Cantu to the shooting. Here’s another: “Juan Moreno, the only witness who testified at trial as to what happened at the time of the shooting, stated that Pedro Gomez did not fire the .38 caliber handgun he was attempting to hand over to Cantu.” Cantu v. Collins, 967 F.2d 1006, 1016 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 3045 (1993).
So you really think Cantu’s conviction for capital murder wasn’t the direct cause of his execution? It was an uncharged assault brought in during the punsihment phase of his capital murder case that did it, and the fact that he had by that point been found guilty of capital murder had nothing to do with it? If this is about his execution and not his wrongful conviction, exactly how would he have been executed if he hadn’t been convicted of capital murder?
Let me put this a different way: say Cantu had shot a police officer twenty years ago, and served ten years in prison for it. He’s brought up on capital murder. The fact that he once shot a police officer is 100% not relevant to his guilt or innocence as to the capital murder, and is inadmissable to prove it. If a prosecutor had mentioned it during the guilt-innocence phase, it would be grounds for reversal on appeal. The reason is because we don’t try people for being criminals in general, we try them for the specific crimes that they are charged with.
Now, once he’s found guilty of capital punishment, the prosecutor can enter eveidence that he once shot a police officer, but this isn’t the “punishment phase” of a trial for shooting a police officer. In this instance, he’s already punished for that. The sole purpose is determining the character and future dangerousness of the person found guilty of capital murder. If the capital murder charge is bogus in the first place, it’s a moot point.
What??? The crime for which he was convicted and executed for he protested his innocence of. He admitted shooting someone else but that was weeks later. The man he shot had 2 guns, and was not in uniform. He was not on duty and not acting in his offical capacity. It was only after that the man was found to be a cop. To say he shot a cop is stretching the situation somewhat.
Let me put it yet another way: basically, your argument boils down to “Even if the guilt-innocence phase of his capital murder trial was horribly flawed, the subsequent punishment phase was okay, so everything worked out all right.” Do you not see the flaw in that?
And- NOTHING and NO ONE else was admitted as evidence during the actual trial? 
You know- IF there was a witness (like the shop teacher) who said that Cantu had been bragging about doing the killing… this statement would still be technically true, as Moreno would still be “the only witness who testified at trial as to what happened at the time of the shooting”.
Sure, let’s not be stupid, if Cantu had not been convicted of killing Gomez, then it never would have gone to a sentancing hearing. But let’s also look at these facts- if Cantu had not shot the cop down in cold blood- he never would have been arrested for the murder of Gomez in the first place. And, if he hadn’t shot the cop- he also would have “just” gone to prison, not gotten the DP. So shooting the cop led to his arrest and his DP. Next, I doubt if Moreno would have felt such remorse and doubt if Cantu had just gone to prison.
FINALLY, AND HERE’S THE POINT YOU’RE ALL IGNORING- IF CANTU HADN’T BEEN EXECUTED THIS THREAD WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN STARTED. IT’S NOT ABOUT HIS “FALSE CONVICTION”. READ THE DAMN TITLE- IT’S ABOUT HIS **EXECUTION.
**
You are all ignoring that fact that if Cantu hadn’t shot the Cop he never would have been executed (or even arrested), thus no thread. Thus, we are NOT debating his “false imprisonment” we’re debating " Executed man found innocent". Read the Title of the thread again.
I know, I know, “The death penalty is Evil, so let’s use anything possible to attack it”. But this isn’t helping- it’s obvious that those who claim this case proves anything about the DP are either horribly biased or have their head in the sand. Sorry, try again next time. This just isn’t the case that will change the public’s mind about the DP. No matter how you scream, shout and call me names- as even though I am not in favour of the DP, I have to be the enemy :rolleyes: as I am not in 100% agreement with you! :dubious: 
That’s so sad.
There was evidence regarding venue - the location of the murder placed it within the jurisdiction of the court. There was evidence from the medical examiner to prove that a human being had been killed, and that the cause of death was shooting.
None of that evidence had anything to do with Cantu.
The only evidence that had to do with Cantu was the testimony of Moreno.
NOTHING ELSE.
And [d]DrDeth** – why haven’t you answered my question?
To repeat:
Please summarize the evidence that you contend led to Mr. Cantu’s conviction.
The only thing you’ve said in response to this was, “Ask stupid questions much?”
So…
Please summarize the evidence that you contend led to Mr. Cantu’s conviction.
Hang on, hang on, let me get this straight. You’re saying that someone else could have heard Cantu bragging about the murder, and that that would have contradicted what the only witness at the scene now says, and therefore despite the fact that there wasn’t a someone else, we can ignore the fact that the only witness to the crime says the dead man didn’t do it? Because I have to say, that might actually be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. Really and truly, it might. I can just see you in front of a jury: “Who are you going to believe, ladies and gentlemen of the jury; a man I have just made up who might have heard something really incriminating, or this person who merely happened to be at the scene of the crime and see the murderers? I think we all know where the real truth lies.”
Which should be all you need to know. There can be no more discussion; if Cantu is innocent of this crime, then sentencing would never have occurred and is therefore irrelevant. Yes, this thread is about his sentence, but the rest of us are smart enough to go to the root of the issue, namely his actual guilt. IF AND ONLY IF he were guilty, THEN a discussion of whether the DP were correctly applied at sentencing would be relevant. Unfortunately this rather simple implication seems to be entirely eluding you.
No; you’re ignoring the far more glaring, hit-you-in-the-face obvious, nineteen-elephants-in-a-tiny-room overwhelming point that if he DIDN’T DO THE FUCKING CRIME THEN HE SHOULDN’T BE EXECUTED! How is beyond me, but still you persist. It’s truly strange to watch. Faced with a total inability to provide any evidence that this man committed the crime for which he was executed, you are actually arguing that it’s all right that he was killed anyway, first by inventing fictional circumstantial evidence, and then by arguing that the sentencing stage was correctly followed. It’s original, I’ll give you that, but by god it’s making me feel queasy.
Fighting ignorance since 1973.
Sometimes ignorance fights back.
Watching Deth in this thread is like watching a wolverine try to juggle infants and chainsaws.
You know it’s going to only going to come to no good, but you can’t quite look away.
I already answered your question and you already replied to my reply. See post #326.
No Dead Badger, that’s not what I was saying. :rolleyes: The point is- even if Moreno NOW says Cantu didn’t do it - that doesn’t mean that Cantu didn’t do it, or that Moreno’s testimoney 20 years ago- when his mermory was fresh and less tainted- wasn’t the more accurate one. Besides- Moreneo was under oath and the penalty of perjuty then, he’s not now. How can a 20 year old memory be better that a fresh one? How can a statement isuued to the press be more trusted that one under oath? You are all assuming that Moreno lied then and is telling the truth now- and there is simply no evidence that is true.
The only witness to the crime did state under oath that Cantu did it.
Next- **I **don’t have to provide any evidence- the prosecution did that at the trial, and it convinced the jury and years of Appellate Judges. I am simply saying that that evidence appeared to be good according to the Judge, Jury, and Appellate Courts- all of who found it was suffient to convict Cantu. I wasn’t there, I wasn’t on the Jury. I have stated in this thread that the evidence seemed a little sparse to me, but that’s pure speculation and opinion.
Nor did I “invent” any circumstantial evidence. I simply pointed out that the wording used in Pravniks post could still leave a lot of other evidence. I have no idea what was presented in Court, I haven’t read the Trial transcripts. Bricker has read a Summation of them, and states that Moreno’s testimony is the only thing that put the finger on Cantu. I have no reason to doubt him, but I can’t speak from my own reading what the evidence was; since as Bricker pointed out, I can’t access his Source, nor can he link to it. So I don’t know what the evidence was. Bricker says he does, and I am not debating that point. The bit about the cop shooting was admitted as evidence in the sentancing hearing according to Bricker’s newspaper cite.
The fact that there was none rather renders your point quite brainfuckingly stupid, of course, but never mind. A fact which despite repeated cites you refuse to acknowledge, preferring in fact go on to flaunt your ignorance:
Do you not think that, when debating the potential innocence of an executed man, having some idea of what was presented in court might be considered almost a pre-requisite for holding forth on the rectitude of his death? Mmm?
So, let’s be clear; are you admitting that there was no other evidence, or are you refusing to debate the evidence against Cantu? When that is in fact the absolutely core issue? Is your repeated refusal to actually, y’know, find out what happened an attempt to insulate yourself from having to admit that the only evidence against Cantu has been recanted? Incidentally, your bizarre position is at odds with pretty much everyone else who was at the trial (bolding mine):
I know. We all know. OUR POINT IS THAT THE SENTENCING IS IRRELEVANT IF THE ORIGINAL VERDICT IS FLAWED. Please tell me you understand this quite stultifyingly simple point.
Your only quasi-valid (read: not utterly dumb) point is that Moreno is not under oath now. However, since it has been established that there is no official avenue available whereby he could re-testify, you are (as has been repeatedly pointed out) setting an impossible standard. Since it is his claim not that he mis-remembered, but that he was pressured into mis-identifying Cantu, your point about the time elapsed has no real relevance.
Incidentally, your post #326 contains absolutely nothing that could be construed as an answer to Bricker’s challenge, merely the sickening sentiment that it’s all right if we killed Cantu for something he didn’t do, because he probably did something else. Well done, sir, well done.