Indeed? Here is Post #326 in its entirety:
It’s unclear to me what your answer is. You refer to my cite, but describe it as “somewhat biased,” so I do not know if you intend to endorse it or not. You don’t offer any other answer, but neither is it clear you are accepting my cite.
So for the sake of clarity, would you mind anwering the question again, without any asides or editorial commentary that may confuse me?
Please summarize the evidence that you contend led to Mr. Cantu’s conviction.
And a follow-up question, if you don’t mind:
Please summarive your understanding of a bifurcated trial - that is, the difference between a guilt phase and a sentencing phase.
Thanks.
Tangential to this whole discussion, DrDeth earlier asserted that we don’t know that we’ve killed an innocent person since 1977.
Illinois had 13 out of 157 inmates on death row exonerated - not just put beyond a reasonable doubt, but absolutely exonerated of the crimes they were convicted of (cite).
Since 1977, 999 inmates have been executed.
Given the dummy variable exonerated_or_not, we find that 8.28% of Illinois inmates were wrongly there, and the standard error is 0.022064341498635624952950139938013.
8.28% is 3.5 standard deviations away from 0 (0 would be no mistakes).
The odds that 999 people were put to death, and none were innocent, is the probability that we can fall 3.5 standard deviations away from 8.28% - which is
0.0002.
(I used the student table here http://math.uc.edu/~brycw/classes/148/tables.htm).
That’s right - the odds we haven’t killed an innocent person is 2 out of 10,000.
Two men broke into a house belonging to the brother of Juan Moreno. The victim, Pedro Gomez, and Mr. Moreno were there to watch the house because it had been burgled numerous times. On the night in question, David Garza and another man, later identified as Cantu, came into the house, stole a wallet, shot and killed the victim, and shot Mr. Moreno 9 times. At trial, Mr. Moreno identified Cantu as the man who shot him and Mr. Gomez. Detectives testified that Mr. Moreno, after first indicating that he was too scared to identify the shooter, eventually identified Cantu in a photo array. Detectives also testified that Mr. Moreno did not identify the shooter in an array that did not include Mr. Cantu. Mr. Moreno testified that, yes, indeed, he was afraid to identify Cantu originally, but did so to two separate detectives and at trial.
That’s basically it at trial. The surviving victim identified Cantu as the killer, both at trial and in photo arrays earlier. The prosecution has an eye witness to the crime, and positive identifications. The eye witness knew Cantu, there was sufficient light to identify him, and he gave a positive identification under oath. Now, I’m extremely leery of relying only on the testimony of only one eye witness, but the jury heard the evidence, including Cantu’s attempts to question the identification, and found beyond a reasonable doubt, that Cantu committed this murder.
Now, 20 years later, the codefendant and the eyewitness, for the first time ever, decide to change their stories. Garza, the codefendant who was present at the murder, now, of all times, decides to finally tell the truth? He wouldn’t tell the truth to save his best friend’s life earlier, even after he pleaded guilty, but he only comes forward now? The trial judge stated: “In my opinion, he [Garza] failed to do it because what he told you is not true,” said Barrera, who is now a defense attorney. He did it “because he has nothing better to do and he wants to put everybody on a guilt trip.”
Add to that that, in an initial interview, Garza had put Cantu at the murder scene, and they’re startling revelations carry very little weight to me.
It very well may be that Texas executed an innocent man. The evidence at trial was apparently sufficient for the jury, the judge, the appellate court, and the 5th Circuit. Now twenty years later, after any chance of having their statements tested in court, Garza decides to come clean. I’m not buying it. That’s not to say that I’m convinced that Cantu is 100%, no doubt guilty. The shooting of in the bar later certainly did not help his case. But I’m also extremely leery of saying the Cantu is an “innocent man”.
So then- you’re saying that every single post up to #327 (when Bricker stated he had read the appelate breifs is drivel?
I can’t debate the evidence agaist Cantu, nor can I “find out what happened” .Read Brickers post- he can read the Appelate briefs (even he doesn’t have access to the actual trial transcripts) and the rest of us- including you and me- can’t access that site. I don’t know what the 'evidence" was at that trial, and neither do you. I have already stated that IF all the evidennce against Catu was a single eye-witness, that seems like maybe the Texas Court system maybe has a problem, and I agree that IF Moreno had said “No, that’s not the man who shot me” a conviction (or in fact a trial) would have been highly unlikely.
Who else was at the trail that says that? Really- EVERYONE? Not the cop whose partner was shot. Two dudes so far have said so. There was at least a couple dozen dudes in that Courtroom, you know. And what is “my bizarre position”? My position has only been that the fact that Moreno NOW recants his testimony does not nessesarily mean he lied while on the stand 20 years ago. He coudl be lying now (he’s not under oath) and his memory could be wrong- in fact, there is no doubt at all in my mind that his memories of that event NOW are different than those of 20 years ago. And Moreno doesn’t say he was coerced or threatened.
And, there were PLENTY of chances for Moreno to recant after the trial but before Cantu was executed. He failed to do so every single time.
Hamlet, if the witness knew Cantu by sight ‘because he had seen him 2 or 3 times before that night,’ and if he decided to frame the guy, I’m not impressed he could pick out the guy in photo arrays. Of course he could!
In the linked article in the OP itself (remember that post so long ago?), Moreno says he felt pressured by the authorities. He may have also been told to say Cantu did it by the actual killer, on threat of death.
What motive does he have now to lie?
See, I don’t think you get it. The cop who was shot was not at the trial. The cop’s partner was not at the trial.
They had nothing to do with the crime. The cop shooting wasn’t the crime he was being tried for.
Moreno was not a cop.
The only witnesses to the crime have both recanted. That’s why those two are both important.
Who are the ‘at least couple dozen other dudes’ you’re talking about?
You claim to have the Appelate briefs, and you say you can’t link us to them. So, I have to take your word for it. Up to this point, I have. But since you keep trying this stupid lawyer trick :rolleyes: I can no longer trust you, thus I’ll have to demand your cite. So- cite? Link us to the trial transcript please.
You said that the ME testified, right? If the ME hadn’t said it was a homicide, then also Cantu would not have been convicted right? Thus, was not the ME’s testimony material?
So- IF Cantu had not killed Gomez- then he likely never would have been arrested, tried, convicted or executed. IF Cantu had not shot the cop he likely never would have been arrested, tried, convicted or executed. IF the ME hadn’t ruled it a Homicide- then Cantu would not have been tried, convicted or executed. IF Moreno hadn’t testified aginst Cantu, then Cantu likely wouldn’t have been convicted or executed. IF the police had not testified at the sentencing hearing about Cantu shooting the cop, then Cantu would likely never have been executed. IF Moreno had recanted during any of the several Appeals, then also Cantu would likely not have been executed. Other than the first IF- do you deny any of these?
But again- when you give me an OFFICIAL cite- which I asked for long before you started this round of stupid lawyer tricks- then I’ll answer your stupid question. See- two can play this stupid game of demanding answers. I trusted you. Then you try stupid lawyer tricks on me. 
However, Hamlet has made this rather moot with his excellent post, which I agree with. Thank you Hamlet. 
They weren’t? Are you sure? I don’t think they testified during the actual trial, but they were quite possibly there, in fact I think one of them was the arresting Officer, and he usually testifies. 
Actually, Garza never testified against Cantu, and so he hasn’t “recanted”. It is just that up to this time he refused to say who did the shooting. Now that the SOL has passed, he gets gabby. :dubious:
12 Jurors, 3 alternates, 1 Judge, two Prosecutors, two defense attorneys, a couple of bailiffs, a court reporter, the ME, the arresting Officer… minimum.
Not to mention witnesses.
You identified a minimum of 20 individuals who have participated in the judicial proceedings for this one case. These individuals, like any human, are capable of error, prejudice, stupidity, laziness, malice, hyperbole, etc. etc. etc. Any of these human foilbles has the potential to result in a person being convicted for a crime they didn’t commit and receiving a sentence as punishment. I, for one, do not support giving someone the ultimate punishment where there’s that degree of potential error. You simply cannot correct the mistake if the innocent person is dead.
Many, many, many people believe that O. J. Simpson killed his wife and Ron Goldman, yet the system considered the evidence and found him innocent. I’m no more familiar with the evidence and case than anyone else who wasn’t in the jury, but I believe an error was made and a guilty man was found “not guilty.” Nothing would lead me to believe that the exact opposite couldn’t happen.
No, because I’m not the one advancing the moronic opinion that no newspaper article is a valid cite. That is you. Several newspaper articles do indeed describe what evidence was presented, some of them in a fair bit of detail. You were the one that proudly claimed you had “no idea” what went on; the rest of us are educating ourselves with the resources available. Should you find anything, anywhere, that shows a hint, a smidgen, a soupcon of a suggestion that there was in fact other evidence, then we’ll be happy to consider it (Bricker has been spending the last few posts trying very hard to elicit such a thing from you, to no avail). And no, this does not include saying that there “could be” some.
To recap: you think being under oath is a magical truth drug, you know his mind better than he does himself, and despite the fact he says he was pressured, you know he wasn’t. You’re on a roll, buddy.
A “stupid lawyer trick”? It’s a stupid lawyer trick to ask for a direct answer to a direct question? You really are quite the space cadet, aren’t you? And what the fuck is with demanding a link? You’ve been told you can’t get on LexisNexis without a subscription, so don’t be a dickhead. You’ve got a way to go before you’re competing with milroyj, but you’re certainly on the way. One wonders what you’re doing debating on the internet if you’re going to demand standards of evidence that are unobtainable thereon.
So you didn’t read the bit where the foreman of the jury, attorneys from both sides and the Judge said a mistake was made? You missed that, did you? Passed you by, as you serenely floated onwards in your bubble of obliviousness? Tell me, how do you square the fact that even the bleeding prosecutor accepts this was a horrible mistake with your own blithe insistence that it’s all okay really?
I may be wrong about that. So people in the gallery thinking he’s guilty is evidence of guilt? Anyway, Moreno suggests they pinned the murder on Cantu because they were pissed about the cop getting shot. So they may not have thought it was Cantu, either.
Fair enough. He didn’t recant, but now says Cantu wasn’t there. He was 15 at the time of the crime, and was scared. I’m not suspicious.
Uh, so? I thought you meant a couple dozen people who were providers of material evidence. And, like Badger says, the judge, head of the jury, and attorneys now think the trial was a sham. Cite: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3471520.html
Moreno testified because he was in the country illegally, and was afraid of what the cops might do if he didn’t say what they told him to.
Do you believe a cite only exists if someone can link to it?
There is plenty of valid reference material in the world that’s not on-line. Trial transcripts are among them, as a general rule. I’ve given you a cite. The fact that you can’t sit on your ass and click once to read them is not my problem. Go down to your local law library and look up the opinions.
Certainly the ME’s testimony was material. It established that a human being was dead, and the cause of death was a bullet. Those are elements that the state needed to prove.
But it’s not correct to say that the ME’s testimony implicated Cantu. It did not. So the ME’s testimony was material to provign the crime of murder, but completely immaterial when it came to proving that Cantu was the murderer.
All of the above are true.
But they’re meaningless.
If Cantu had decided to moive to Hollywood and become an actor, was selected to play a part on “America’s Most Wanted” about the killing, and then was identified by a confused witness as being the actual killer, I could contruct a similar string of IF’S, starting with, “If Cantu had not moved to Hollywood…”
How would mine be any more or less probative than yours?
I’ve given you an official cite: Cantu v. State of Texas, 738 S.W.2d 249 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). It’s not avaliable for nothing. Go join Westlaw. Or Lexis. Or go to a law library.
So you now adopt Hamlet’s post as your answer to my question?
You know what? You CAN read the 5th Circuit appellate opinion, which I already linked to. Here it is again: Cantu v. Collins, 967 F.2d 1006, 1016 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 3045 (1993). Find out what happened.
Here’s my main point: realistically, there simply could not have been a more favorable event to palliate Cantu’s guilt OTHER than what happened: the recantation of the sole witness and his disavowal of the only testimony that indicated Cantu’s guilt.
What else could realistically happen to show his innocence?
[QUOTE=plnnr]
Not to mention witnesses.
You identified a minimum of 20 individuals who have participated in the judicial proceedings for this one case. These individuals, like any human, are capable of error, prejudice, stupidity, laziness, malice, hyperbole, etc. etc. etc. Any of these human foilbles has the potential to result in a person being convicted for a crime they didn’t commit and receiving a sentence as punishment. I, for one, do not support giving someone the ultimate punishment where there’s that degree of potential error. You simply cannot correct the mistake if the innocent person is dead.
Many, many, many people believe that O. J. Simpson killed his wife and Ron Goldman, yet the system considered the evidence and found him innocent. I’m no more familiar with the evidence and case than anyone else who wasn’t in the jury, but I believe an error was made and a guilty man was found “not guilty.” QUOTE]
True, and *in general * I agree. You’re preaching to the choir. However- my point was- and still is- that this particular case is not “the one big case which will blow the doors off the DP”, it’s not- IMHO- PROOF that an “innocent man” was executed. Sure, it raises questions & doubt.
But OJ did lose a “wrongful death” lawsuit. Thus we have good strong evidence that OJ killed those people- just not “proof beyond all reasonable doubt”.
I am not saying that.
There is- right there in Brickers posts. There was the evidence from the ME, for example. There doesn’t seem to be any other evidence that directly connects Cantu to the killing, sure. But the IS "other evidence’ that -according to Bricker- was admitted at the trial.
Sure it is. I asked Bricker for a cite. He said he couldn’t give me one, and explained. Thus, I based my thoughts on the evidence against Cantu entirely on Brickers posts & word. I said so. Asking me what I think the evidence is- when he himself suppied me with said evidence in posts where i accepted his uncited word for it- is a “stupid lawyer trick”. He knows what evidence I have read- as he gave it to me. Asking a question like that is a “stupid lawyer trick”= one that you fell for as now you accuse me of not giving “a direct answer to a direct question”. And Bricker knows that & expected that to happen which is exactly why he asked that question in that manner.
Actually, your cite doesn’t mention the Judge, does it?
Of what relevance is that to the point under discussion?
Maybe the state had fifty people parade in and confirm that the victim was dead. Perhaps the funeral director, pallbearers, funeral attendees, all testified he was dead, and six psychics confirmed that he had crossed over and was chatting with Elvis. The question is not what evidence was admitted to prove THE CRIME HAPPENED.
The question was what evidence was admitted to prove the guilt of the accused.
No, until you started pulling "stupid lawyer tricks’ I accepted your word.
And, no where did I say that “the ME’s testimony implicated Cantu”. You know that. Now you try and implicate that I did.
They are not meaningless. They are part of the whole trail and path of Cantu’s execution. Each was a significant part of the path that led to his DP, you can’t take just one part out and say “nothing else was important”.
No thatnks. I trusted you- until you tried a stupid lawyer trick on me. You know, I was a Fed Paralegal for years- I might not be have been admitted to the Bar, but I know a “stupid lawyer trick” when I see one. “Fool me once…” Was it worth losing your trustworthiness to make a cheap shot?
There might be a stupider poster on this board, but I’ll be damned if I’ve ever seen him anywhere.
I asked you to summarize the evidence because your earlier posts kept mentioned the police officer that was shot, and how that evidence was adduced at trial. It seemed unclear to me whether you understood how a bifurcated trial works, and even your latest post above seems to blend and mix different types of evidence without any real demonstration that you understand how evidence is offered for different purposes at different stages of a trial.
I wasn’t trying to trap you. I was trying to guide you into laying out, clearly, what you believed the evidence indicating guilt was. If that answer included things that were not actually part of the guilt phase at trial, I could then clear up your misunderstanding.
Interestingly enough, you have STILL not, clearly and unequivocally, answered this question, which leads me to believe you STILL may have some misconceptions and are unwilling to reveal them.