The ME testified that the victim died of a close range gunshot wound, and Moreno’s brother testified that the victim was in his residence, which established the elements of capital murder. The only evidence sufficiently establishing Cantu’s connection to the murder, direct or indirect, was Juan Moreno’s testimony.
Ignoring for a second you’ve been given a link to the 5th Circuit opinion twice now, you’re still missing the fact that the answer to Bricker’s question is: “Juan Moreno’s identification of the shooter, now recanted.”
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.
[QUOTE]
As coroner I must aver that I have truly examined her, and she’s not only merely dead, she’s really quite sincerely, dead.
I had accepted whatever evidence you gave me. Yes, the testimony that Cantu shot the cop down was indeed evidence and was indeed admitted- but not at his trial “guilt phase”, but at his sentencing hearing. That is- according to you. Did you tell me wrong?
Indeed, you were trying to trap me. Please don’t try and make us believe otherwise. If you tell me “the moon is blue today”, and I say I accept your statement, asking me repeatedly “do you believe the moon is blue?” and “what color is the moon?” is a trap. You know damn well it is, and this kind of questioning is standard amoung lawyers. It often fools the laydudes in th ejury and audience. It fooled one here, didn’t it?
Indeed “The only evidence *sufficiently establishing Cantu’s connection to the murder, direct or indirect, * was Juan Moreno’s testimony.” according to the sources cited here. But also the sources cited here do not support “The only evidence was Juan Moreno’s testimony”- which has been claimed. There is a huge difference. Evidence- according to the sources cited here- was given and admitted that Cantu shot a cop down in cold blood. This evidence was not disputed by the defence.
And- shouldn’t Bricker be able to figure that out? I can’t see any LINK either, just a few cites.
No, he told you correctly, but you stated over and over that that was the evidence that “led to his execution” and that we were debating "his “execution, not his conviction.” Esteemed counsel is trying to get you to see that that is not just a flawed legal analysis, but a completely nonsensical statement.
I can’t make heads or tails of this one. He asked a simple question:
Except for Juan Moreno’s ID, what was the evidence of Cantu’s guilt?
Or am I trapping you too now?
That was not evidence of his guilt in the crime he was charged with. Again, except for Juan Moreno’s ID, what was the evidence of Cantu’s guilt?
DrDeth, seriously, you’re slipping into lekatt or mswas territory, here.
Now, I don’t know you, but I think that if you were in their territory before this I would have noticed.
The facts are these:
There would have been no conviction without the testimony of the guy who now says he was lying.
Without a conviction, there would have been no execution.
Doesn’t matter what happened during sentencing. Doesn’t matter about any other evidence (in this case none). All that matters is that the prosecution’s entire case rested on one man who now says he lied.
You seem to be fixated on the word “Evidence”. The question repeatedly asked of you is “what is the evidence of Cantu’s guilt for the original crime”?
at the trial for the original crime there was much “evidence” that was presented. Much, as Bricker has patiently explained, was “evidence” that a crime was committed. That there was a death, the death was ruled a homicide, the proximate cause of said death, the jurisidiction of said crime etc. All of those things are necessary to present at any trial. However, in addition to the fact that a crime was committed, the prosecution must present evidence that the defendant was responsible for the crime. without that evidence, there cannot be a finding of guilt. and at this trial, the only piece of evidence that was presented to show that Cantu committed the crime was Juan Moreno’s testimony.
Since that testimony has now been refuted solidly, there would not be a finding of guilt for Cantu, and then (please listen carefully) no fucking hearing where testimony about the cop shooting would have been held. That testimony would not have come in to play for anyone to refute it, therefore is irrelevant to the discussion about Cantu and the DP.
Same thing as at the trial, corroboration of the testimony. Under oath, subject to cross-examination, Moreno testified that Cantu shot him and Mr. Perez. That testimony was corroborated by the testimony of the Detectives who testified that they never implicated Cantu to Moreno, that they never pressured him into making an identification, and that Moreno’s failure to identify Cantu earlier was due to his fear of a gang-banging violent person and his family. The detectives testified that Moreno was able to pick out the killer from a photo array, and that that person was Cantu. Moreno’s testimony was also corroborated by the physical evidence of the shooting, the death of the victim, and the testimony of his brother.
The testimony was also corroborated by evidence not presented to the jury, being Garza’s statement to police that Cantu was there, the alleged confession Cantu gave to the third person, and the fact Cantu apparently had no problem shooting people. But this isn’t evidence that was presented to a jury, wasn’t tested by cross-examination or rebuttal evidence, and wasn’t necessarily the most reliable. Kinda like Moreno’s recantation and Garza’s statements now. I still don’t understand how the hell Garza, supposedly knowing his best friend in the world was innocent, didn’t say a word about it until 20 years later. Or that Moreno, who, apparently wasn’t being berated by police for 20 years, all of a sudden has developed a Grinch-like growing of his conscious about what he did.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a tough case. There are very good arguments on both sides of the issue and the case for guilt against Cantu is nowhere near as strong as I am comfortable with, at least until we get more information and an investigation is done. I would be horrified, not to mention extremely angered, if the State of Texas put a man to death because Moreno perjured himself 20 years ago. I just don’t think that is the case, but freely admit it is a possibility.
*Note: I am not adopting, advocating, or supporting any argument made by DrDeth. He’s a loon.
I’d say that Moreno’s trestimony was bolstered by that of the detectives. In fairness, they did not corroborate the key portion of his testimony.
Since the portion of Moreno’s testimony that implicated Cantu is the only testimony at issue, I’d also suggest that saying his testimony was corroborated by the physical evidence is not particularly useful. Nothing in the physical evidence corroborated his identification of Cantu as the shooter.
“Indeed “The only evidence sufficiently establishing Cantu’s connection to the murder, direct or indirect, was Juan Moreno’s testimony.” according to the sources cited here.” How many times do I have to write that?
You’ve still said “according to sources cited here,” I notice. Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement, or those sources? You’ve been given a link to the appellate opinion that discusses the case. It’s not a “biased” newspaper - it’s the opinion of the judges reviewing the case.
In other words – do YOU agree with what you’ve said here?
Indeed “The only evidence sufficiently establishing Cantu’s connection to the murder, direct or indirect, was Juan Moreno’s testimony.” according to the sources cited here." For the what- 3rd, 4th time? :rolleyes:
However, still- dudes here claimed that Juan Moreno’s testimony *was the only evidence given at all. * It was not. There was lots of other evidence. And- you all will not agree to that.
Nor has “that testimony has now been refuted solidly”. I did agree “IF Moreno hadn’t testified against Cantu, then Cantu likely wouldn’t have been convicted or executed” quite a few posts ago. However, Moreno DID testify against Cantu at the trail, did he not? Would Moreno’s current statement be admissable in a Court? No.
And, as Hamlet has said, there was other evidence that apparently wasn’t presented at the trial. Evidence that points to Cantu.
Like Ihave said many many times now- if Morales had recanted then, or anytime before cantu was executed, Cantu would likely not have been executed. BUT HE DIDN’T. However, his recantation WAY too late to do any good for anyone does not impress me. It certainly does not prove Morales perjured himself when he was under oath, nor does it prove Cantu really did not shoot Gomez.
So- for one final time- the words you all seem to want to see over & over & over- “The only evidence sufficiently establishing Cantu’s connection to the murder, direct or indirect, was Juan Moreno’s testimony and thus- IF Moreno hadn’t testified against Cantu, then Cantu likely wouldn’t have been convicted or executed”. But that fact does not make Cantu actually innocent. Sorry.
Also in Post # 345 and post #364. In fact in the post you quote above and say “now” was a direct quote from my post #364. So it isn’t “now”- it has been over & over. And you know that, but you’re still pulling stupid lawyer tricks, as apparently some dudes here are buying them. Happy?
You mean that the sources cited here are wrong? I should NOT base my posts statements on them?
The scary thing about that, though, is that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the way that the way the detectives presented the photo arrays was impermissably suggestive, but that the suggestive procedure didn’t give rise to a “substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification” after reviewing a five factor analysis. That’s some pretty close hair splitting, especially given that that’s what more or less what the witness is claiming now.
I’m afraid we won’t ever will know more than we do now. There hasn’t exactly been a huge public clamor over it here - I wouldn’t have heard about it if not for the board, and the prosecutor I just told the story to hadn’t heard it at all. I have to say I would be surprised if there was any sort of official inquiry into it. I’m not at all convinced Cantu was factually innocent, either, but one way or another the guy who sent him to death row is an admitted liar about it, and consequently I’m also not at all convinced of his guilt. It’s like if you had a defense witness you were cross-examining who was telling a completely different story on the stand than he originally told police–it wouldn’t matter when the guy was actually telling the truth. His credibility is destroyed either way, and you’d eat him alive.
I have already QUESTIONED the verdict. But my doubt is not the same as “an innocent man was executed”. Right now, since we can’t believe Morales, and there isn’t much physical evidence, about the only thing would be a confession from the 'real killer". Personally, I think Cantu may well have done it. He certainly had the killer mentality, he proved that by shooting a cop 4 times. Sure, that doesn’t prove he killed Gomez. Maybe he didn’t. If you press me, I’d have to say that given what I have read here would lead me to two conclusions:
Cantu probably did it. (and I think you would concede this also)
I have not been convinced of this “beyond all reasonable doubt”.
Thus, I am willing to admit doubt, but not willing to say “an innocent man was executed”. There will be a case someday where we can say that with certainty. This ain’t it. Sorry.
Like I said- too bad Morales didn’t have the cojones to speak up before Cantu was dead. Now- we’ll really never know.
Because THEN the whole thing would have went to an Appeals Court which would have made some sort of ruling on this. Wouldn’t that have settled some minds?
