SCOTUS halts execution of Duane Buck in Texas

[Fear_Itself]

Supreme Court halts Texas execution

Will this anger the Tea Party? How will Rick Perry react to federal interference in Texas justice?

[elucidator]

The last two words of the second sentence display a fine sense of irony.

[Fear_Itself]

Thank you. I re-wrote that line twice.

[elucidator]

An hour well spent!

[Fear_Itself]

Only if you count pee breaks.

[Magiver]

@Fear_Itself

Supreme Court halts Texas execution

Will this anger the Tea Party? How will Rick Perry react to federal interference in Texas justice?

You know, it’s customary to read your own cite before you publish it.

“A similar request to block the punishment was made to Texas Gov. Rick Perry”.

[Fear_Itself]

@Magiver

You know, it’s customary to read your own cite before you publish it.

“A similar request to block the punishment was made to Texas Gov. Rick Perry”.

To Rick Perry. Not by Rick Perry. There is a difference.

[Zoe]

It’s a good thing that his stay of execution didn’t depend on Perry. During the ten years or so that he has been the govenor, there have been over 230 executions. If Buck had not been given a stay, he would have become the second person to be put to death in Texas this week. There are to more death sentences scheduled for next week. Perry says he doesn’t lose any sleep over it.

Apparently it doesn’t matter if they are mentally retarded or had a fair trial. Even the innocent dead don’t give him a problem.

Perry is as cold-blooded as they come. So much for “justice for all.”

Others who were victimized by the same psychologist’s discriminatory testimony have gotten new sentencings or new trials.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Zoe

Others who were victimized by the same psychologist’s discriminatory testimony have gotten new sentencings or new trials.

If I read correctly, though, all five of them were again sentenced to death.

[Magiver]

@Zoe

It’s a good thing that his stay of execution didn’t depend on Perry. During the ten years or so that he has been the govenor, there have been over 230 executions. If Buck had not been given a stay, he would have become the second person to be put to death in Texas this week. There are to more death sentences scheduled for next week. Perry says he doesn’t lose any sleep over it.

Apparently it doesn’t matter if they are mentally retarded or had a fair trial. Even the innocent dead don’t give him a problem.

Perry is as cold-blooded as they come. So much for “justice for all.”

Others who were victimized by the same psychologist’s discriminatory testimony have gotten new sentencings or new trials.

There is no question about the guilt of Duane Buck. He killed his ex-girlfriend in front of her children and one of the people he attacked survived to testify.

[Fear_Itself]

@Magiver

There is no question about the guilt of Duane Buck. He killed his ex-girlfriend in front of her children and one of the people he attacked survived to testify.

Not really relevant to the issue that is being appealed. His sentencing included prejudicial testimony, calling into question whether he was justly sentenced to death. It is likely his death sentence will be commuted to a lesser sentence as a result.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Magiver

There is no question about the guilt of Duane Buck. He killed his ex-girlfriend in front of her children and one of the people he attacked survived to testify.

Published before the stay:

Phyllis Taylor, the shooting’s lone survivor, had petitioned the board to stay Buck’s execution. “This execution would only add to my pain, and it wouldn’t give me closure,” she said, according to the Texas Tribune. “I would ask that Duane Buck’s life be spared. I feel that he deserves a fair trial.”

There’s no question about his guilt. The problem is with the punishment phase of the trial–when a psychologist testified that he was more dangerous because of his race. Therefore, he should be executed rather than imprisoned for life.

[Bricker]

@Bridget_Burke

Published before the stay:

There’s no question about his guilt. The problem is with the punishment phase of the trial–when a psychologist testified that he was more dangerous because of his race. Therefore, he should be executed rather than imprisoned for life.

But that psychiatrist, Dr. Quijano, was called by the defense.

Listen, I’m as anti-death-penalty as they come, but you don’t see a problem when a defense witness testifies impermissibly and then the defense argues that the result is tainted?

I will re-read the opinion and admittedly am going from memory here. But I’m almost certain the offending witness was defense expert Quijano.

[Bricker]

From Buck v. Thaler, (Fifth Cir. 2009).

In mitigation, Buck presented evidence that he is a peaceful, non-violent person; that his mother died when he was 12 years old; that he worked as an auto mechanic; and that, while he was growing up, his father had served several jail sentences for non-violent felonies. Buck called Dr. Walter Quijano, a clinical psychologist, as an expert witness to testify on the likelihood of Buck’s future dangerousness.[1] On direct examination, Dr. Quijano testified that he had considered several statistical factors when evaluating Buck’s potential for future dangerousness, including but not limited to age, sex, race, social economics, history of violence, and history of substance abuse. Regarding race, Dr. Quijano stated: “It’s a sad commentary that minorities, Hispanics and black people, are over represented in the criminal justice system.”

Dr. Quijano also testified that Buck suffered from dependent personality disorder, which is characterized by an unhealthy reluctance to let go of past relationships, even to the point of violent or destructive behavior. According to Dr. Quijano, however, Buck was unlikely to commit future acts of violence because would be unable to develop similar dependent relationships in jail. Basing his opinion on a combination of statistical, environmental, and clinical factors listed in his expert report, Dr. Quijano concluded that Buck would not likely pose any future danger to society if he were incarcerated.

On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned Dr. Quijano regarding the several factors that he had mentioned during direct examination. At one point, the prosecutor — without objection from Buck’s defense counsel — asked Dr. Quijano about his consideration of both race and sex as relevant factors in his future-dangerousness analysis, which led to the following exchange:

Q: You have determined that the sex factor, that a male is more violent than a female because that’s just the way it is, and that the race factor, black, increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons; is that correct?
A: Yes.
During closing arguments, Buck’s defense counsel recalled for the jury Dr. Quijano’s earlier testimony that there was “a very low probability that [Buck] would ever commit an act of violence.” In rebuttal, the prosecution also referenced Dr. Quijano’s testimony, stating — again without objection from defense counsel — that Dr. Quijano, “who had a lot of experience in the Texas Department of Corrections, . . . told you that there was a probability that [Buck] would commit future acts of violence.” The prosecution made no reference whatsoever to Buck’s race (African-American) or to Dr. Quijano’s use of race as a statistical factor for determining future dangerousness.

[Czarcasm]

i thought Walter Quijano was the State Prison psychologist?

[Implicit]

@Czarcasm

i thought Walter Quijano was the State Prison psychologist?

The defense did call him in this case, but the race issue was raised by the prosecutor in cross examination. He was called by the prosecution for the other 6 that were given re-trials.

Quijano gave similar testimony in six other cases, which, along with Buck’s, were all red-flagged in 2000 by then-Attorney General John Cornyn. Rather than defend the cases on appeal, an appalled Cornyn conceded error, clearing the way for new trials for six of the seven.

Seeking clemency

Not for Buck, whose attorneys waited two and a half years to raise the issue. By then, Attorney General Greg Abbott had replaced Cornyn, and the state had decided that Buck’s case differed from others tainted by the race issue.

For one thing, the defense attorneys, not the prosecutors, put Quijano on the stand. For another, evidence suggested that Buck had been violent with another girlfriend. For those reasons, on Friday, Abbott opposed Buck’s request for a stay of execution in a Houston federal court. The court agreed with Abbott, and denied the stay.

link

[Magiver]

@Bricker

But that psychiatrist, Dr. Quijano, was called by the defense.

Listen, I’m as anti-death-penalty as they come, but you don’t see a problem when a defense witness testifies impermissibly and then the defense argues that the result is tainted?

I will re-read the opinion and admittedly am going from memory here. But I’m almost certain the offending witness was defense expert Quijano.

That’s just strange. Was it a deliberate set-up to nullify the trial?

[Bricker]

@Implicit

The defense did call him in this case, but the race issue was raised by the prosecutor in cross examination. He was called by the prosecution for the other 6 that were given re-trials.
link

Not exactly. If he hadn’t mentioned race in his direct, then such a question would have been beyond the scope on cross:

On direct examination, Dr. Quijano testified that he had considered several statistical factors when evaluating Buck’s potential for future dangerousness, including but not limited to age, sex, race, social economics, history of violence, and history of substance abuse. **Regarding race, Dr. Quijano stated: “It’s a sad commentary that minorities, Hispanics and black people, are over represented in the criminal justice **system.”

The defense can’t raise an issue on direct and then call it out of bounds during cross, using it as a sword and then a shield. The expert report and the expert testimony both mentioned race.

[elucidator]

I would have taken that as a sad comment upon the criminal justice system. I leave to others the question of whether such a grand description applies to Texas.

[Bricker]

In fact, if I were King, I would consider overturning the sentence for ineffective assistance of counsel. What made the defense think calling the prison doc as a witness was a smart idea?