• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Judge Goes to Trial Over Execution

Were Judge Keller's actions proper?

  • Total voters
    16
Truth Detector said:
Ah yes, the old hyperbolic insulting personal attack one can expect from someone who attempts to defend the indefensible.

Carry on, consider your insult reported. :roll:
Click to expand...
I said your opinion is ignorant, not you. Stop whining.

Now, go research the appellate process and remedy that situation.
 
oh boy. this was effectively murder, imo.
 
isn't that a bit of whining?
 
Coronado said:
Okay, here it is, on page four:Emphasis mine.
Click to expand...

Initially I was thinking, "I don't this is a big deal." But reading this additional quote, I don't know. I am interested to see what the outcome is.

However, I must note that I'm not that sympathetic to a convicted murderer.

P.S. Now that I know what his crime involved, I really don't care, as terrible as that sounds. He deserved to die, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
aps said:
Initially I was thinking, "I don't this is a big deal." But reading this additional quote, I don't know. I am interested to see what the outcome is.

However, I must note that I'm not that sympathetic to a convicted murderer.

P.S. Now that I know what his crime involved, I really don't care, as terrible as that sounds. He deserved to die, IMHO.
Click to expand...
The crime Richard committed is essentially irrelevant. The argument is (or should be if certain demagogues would sit down and shut up) whether due process was followed.
 
Coronado said:
The crime Richard committed is essentially irrelevant. The argument is (or should be if certain demagogues would sit down and shut up) whether due process was followed.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm admitting my emotional bias in this case. :3oops:
 
Coronado said:
The crime Richard committed is essentially irrelevant. The argument is (or should be if certain demagogues would sit down and shut up) whether due process was followed.
Click to expand...

The notion that due process wasn't followed based on the FACTS requires willful denial or the willful suspension of disbelief. :2wave:
 
Truth Detector said:
The notion that due process wasn't followed based on the FACTS requires willful denial or the willful suspension of disbelief. :2wave:
Click to expand...
Yeah, whatever.

Does anyone have an intelligent reply?
 
Truth Detector said:
Let’s review the FACTS of this violent THUG rather than the nonsensical hyperbole of this thread:

The crime was committed over 23 years ago.

He was convicted and showed no remorse.

He appealed and the appeals court upheld the conviction.

The case went to the Supreme Court and his conviction and the issue of lethal injection was upheld.

Now what is begging the question is why so many Liberals and perhaps SOME independents are so desperate to take the side of a convicted killer who shows no remorse?
Click to expand...

Because we have something called the rule of law in this country. You may have heard of it. I don't think the facts of the case were in dispute in this decision, so your rehashing them does nothing but stir up people's emotions while ignoring the law. This judge had no authority that trumps the Supreme Court's authority. Whatever YOU think of this particular defendant or the Supreme Court's decision to temporarily suspend lethal injection is irrelevant.
 
Truth Detector said:
:rofl Okay, facts are now labeled as "straw man" issues.

His guilt and attempts to game the system are certainly at issue and the notion that this Judge was not operating within the law requires willful denial or willful ignorance.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Not at all. The real FACTS here are that his guilt was not at stake here when this event occurred. The FACTS here are that there are procedures and practices in place that help to circumvent the death of an innocent man and to give all men, guilty and innocent, equal and fair access to the justice system.

This judge decided, in the most cavalier and inconsistent manner, to override those practices. Now whether he had been guilty or innocent and no matter what emotional response you have to his crimes, the law does not have an emotional response. The law is passionless but fair. The law is without feeling, but equal.

Those are the FACTS in play here. carry on.
 
Kandahar said:
Because we have something called the rule of law in this country.You may have heard of it. I don't think the facts of the case were in dispute in this decision, so your rehashing them does nothing but stir up people's emotions while ignoring the law.
Click to expand...

What law did the judge break? Coronado claims in post 8 of this thread that the only thing the judge did was not follow some unwritten policy of staying open late. Since when is unwritten policy a law?
 
jamesrage said:
What law did the judge break? Coronado claims in post 8 of this thread that the only thing the judge did was not follow some unwritten policy of staying open late. Since when is unwritten policy a law?
Click to expand...

An unwritten policy is most definitely legally binding, if one party (the defense attorneys) had no reason to believe that the previous policy would not continue to hold in THIS case. If the judge wanted to change the custom, the burden was on HER to notify all the parties involved well in advance that the court would start closing at 5, and no extensions would be granted.

Furthermore, even if this custom did not exist, denying a death row inmate access to legal counsel during his final hours is most definitely unconstitutional. It denies him due process.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
oh boy. this was effectively murder, imo.
Click to expand...

No, it was not even remotely close to murder.

Kandahar said:
Because we have something called the rule of law in this country. You may have heard of it. I don't think the facts of the case were in dispute in this decision, so your rehashing them does nothing but stir up people's emotions while ignoring the law. This judge had no authority that trumps the Supreme Court's authority. Whatever YOU think of this particular defendant or the Supreme Court's decision to temporarily suspend lethal injection is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The SC granting cert in one particular DP case does not automatically cause a stay in all other cases. You have to file papers applying for a stay. These are simple, simple, simple papers. The convict's attorneys had at least 6 hours to put those together and hand them in.

Furthermore, because the SC was only reviewing lethal injection, they could have taken him out back and fried him and he would have had no grounds to complain.

Furthermore, the decision eventually upheld the lethal injection, 7-2. That means that even if this guy had had his stay, he would have been done for anyways.

Kandahar said:
An unwritten policy is most definitely legally binding, if one party (the defense attorneys) had no reason to believe that the previous policy would not continue to hold in THIS case. If the judge wanted to change the custom, the burden was on HER to notify all the parties involved well in advance that the court would start closing at 5, and no extensions would be granted.

Furthermore, even if this custom did not exist, denying a death row inmate access to legal counsel during his final hours is most definitely unconstitutional. It denies him due process.
Click to expand...

They did not deny him counsel or due process.
 
jallman said:
Not at all. The real FACTS here are that his guilt was not at stake here when this event occurred. The FACTS here are that there are procedures and practices in place that help to circumvent the death of an innocent man and to give all men, guilty and innocent, equal and fair access to the justice system.

This judge decided, in the most cavalier and inconsistent manner, to override those practices. Now whether he had been guilty or innocent and no matter what emotional response you have to his crimes, the law does not have an emotional response. The law is passionless but fair. The law is without feeling, but equal.

Those are the FACTS in play here. carry on.
Click to expand...

I see that you find the FACTS in this case elusive. Go back and read the case and the links. As RightinNY stated, there was no effort to deny this thug his day in court. This is a pathetic effort to divine some legal right that was never denied.

How fascinating it is to watch your further descent into mindless trolling.

:2wave:
 
RightinNYC said:
No, it was not even remotely close to murder.

The SC granting cert in one particular DP case does not automatically cause a stay in all other cases. You have to file papers applying for a stay. These are simple, simple, simple papers. The convict's attorneys had at least 6 hours to put those together and hand them in.

Furthermore, because the SC was only reviewing lethal injection, they could have taken him out back and fried him and he would have had no grounds to complain.

Furthermore, the decision eventually upheld the lethal injection, 7-2. That means that even if this guy had had his stay, he would have been done for anyways.

They did not deny him counsel or due process.
Click to expand...

At least some here get it. I am curious why there is such a desperate effort by some to divine legal rights where none have been denied.

:2wave:
 
Truth Detector said:
I see that you find the FACTS in this case elusive. Go back and read the case and the links. As RightinNY stated, there was no effort to deny this thug his day in court. This is a pathetic effort to divine some legal right that was never denied.

How fascinating it is to watch your further descent into mindless trolling.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

I think you need to check yourself with a quickness. No one trolled you but you certainly found it in yourself to default to the most boorish and e-thuggish tone you could muster, as is your M.O.

You project on other people a bit too much.
 
I read about this case in the Sunday Observer Newspaper.

I will trust in the American legal system to dispense a fair verdict.
 
jallman said:
I think you need to check yourself with a quickness. No one trolled you but you certainly found it in yourself to default to the most boorish and e-thuggish tone you could muster, as is your M.O.

You project on other people a bit too much.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, ohkay. Carry on dude. :2wave:
 
RightinNYC said:
Furthermore, the decision eventually upheld the lethal injection, 7-2. That means that even if this guy had had his stay, he would have been done for anyways.
Click to expand...
True, but what if the decision had gone the other way? The appellate judge didn't know that would have happened at the time of her actions.
 
Coronado said:
Yup. We have the Houston PD Crime Lab to thank for a lot of that, too.

Trust must be earned. I think the Texas legal system needs to re-earn it.
Click to expand...

We also had the fake cocaine scandal here in Dallas. It just doesn't exactly build confidence in the system.
 
Coronado said:
True, but what if the decision had gone the other way? The appellate judge didn't know that would have happened at the time of her actions.
Click to expand...

First, it's still not her problem - it's the attorney's responsibility to do their job.

Second, the fact that it turned out that way means that there's not really a due process issue - due process is results-oriented.
 
RightinNYC said:
The SC granting cert in one particular DP case does not automatically cause a stay in all other cases.
Click to expand...

It signifies their intent to review the matter and possibly rule it unconstitutional.

RightinNYC said:
You have to file papers applying for a stay. These are simple, simple, simple papers. The convict's attorneys had at least 6 hours to put those together and hand them in.
Click to expand...

Six hours is hardly a long time...especially when the defense attorneys were operating under the perfectly reasonable assumption that they had LONGER than 5pm to file the papers and no one had told them otherwise.

Furthermore, you do not execute someone because his lawyers flubbed some minor procedural detail.

RightinNYC said:
Furthermore, because the SC was only reviewing lethal injection, they could have taken him out back and fried him and he would have had no grounds to complain.
Click to expand...

Come on, you're a lawyer and this is the best argument you have? They DIDN'T "take him out back and fry him." They executed him by lethal injection, just like all other Texas death row inmates.

RightinNYC said:
Furthermore, the decision eventually upheld the lethal injection, 7-2. That means that even if this guy had had his stay, he would have been done for anyways.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the obvious judicial misconduct. If the judge had walked into his cell and shot him point-blank in the head while he was awaiting trial, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. But certainly you would agree she should be punished for that?

RightinNYC said:
They did not deny him counsel or due process.
Click to expand...

Clearly they did. The normal custom was for the court to remain open late on nights when a prisoner was to be executed. The defense counsel was never told otherwise, and was operating under that assumption. The judge's actions were really no different than closing even EARLIER than the scheduled time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom