Thursday, March 20, 2014
Political Mayhem Thursday: A Hard Juror to Strike
Second, I'm fascinated by a scenario that played out in Waco yesterday. It's been an interesting week in the courthouse there-- especially with Kent McKeever showing up for jury duty on Monday-- but what has caught my attention is the capital murder trial of Carnell Petetan, Jr. The case involves several of my former friends in Waco and (on the defense team) my former student Michelle Tuegel.
Baylor President (and former federal judge, solicitor general, and special prosecutor) Ken Starr was on the jury panel, and the prosecutors struck him from the jury. Some will be surprised; I think most people would expect him to be a pro-government juror. However, the reasoning seems sound. Here is how Tommy Witherspoon astutely described it for the Waco Tribune Herald:
One of the objections prosecutors had with Starr was his potential reluctance to convict someone based solely on the testimony of one eyewitness.
“I’d find it very difficult, even if I believe him or her to be honest,” he said. “I might believe him or her, but he might be wrong. I’ve seen too many people on death row who were factually innocent and were convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony.”
Starr said he is not against the death penalty in appropriate cases. He was Chief Justice Warren E. Burger’s law clerk for two years when Burger sided with the U.S. Supreme Court majority in voting to reinstate the death penalty in Gregg vs. Georgia in 1976.
Starr told the attorneys he advocates a statewide review, similar to one done in California, that would study the exercise of discretion by prosecutors in seeking the death penalty.
The story also notes that Starr has represented two death row inmates.
It's wonderful that such a worthwhile discussion of the death penalty would take place where it should.
Do you agree with Judge Starr?
Comments:
<< Home
Thank you for linking to that excellent article. The more I learn about Judge Starr, the more impressed I am.
And I agree that there should be a statewide review in Texas. I like what he said about the inequities among counties.
And I agree that there should be a statewide review in Texas. I like what he said about the inequities among counties.
Yes to the review. And yes to the idea that eyewitness testimony is a contributing factor to false convictions, sometimes the most significant factor. And yes to the idea that prosecutors are too zealous to get a conviction for the utmost charge they can come up with, when a more reasoned path might be a lesser charge.
I disagree with him on the issue of imposing the death penalty in "appropriate cases." I think it's long past time for capital punishment to be abolished. He makes good points about overzealous prosecution and reliance on a single witness. But in the end, he supports it in appropriate cases. I used to, but now, I don't support it at all.
# posted by 
: 9:45 AM
: 9:45 AM
That shouldn't really have been a cause for strike. Having a "hard time" doesn't mean he can't follow the law. The judge should have denied the strike for cause and made the state exercise one of their 13 remaining pre-emptories.
# posted by : 9:55 AM
: 9:55 AM
Anon., I was wondering about that, too. Not having heard his full statement (I'm sure there was much more said) it is hard to tell.
Post a Comment
<< Home
