Top court overturns three Texas death sentences

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Top court overturns three Texas death sentences
Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:19PM EDT

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court overturned
three Texas death sentences on Wednesday because of flawed
jury instructions formerly used by the state that leads the
country with the most executions.

-snip-

In one case involving LaRoyce Lathair Smith, who was
convicted for the 1991 murder of a Taco Bell manager in
Dallas, the 5-4 ruling marked the second time in three years
that the high court has set aside his death penalty.

-snip-

The Supreme Court's latest ruling, written by Justice Anthony
Kennedy, said the state court misinterpreted federal law.
Sending the case back to the state court for more
proceedings, Kennedy concluded, "It appears Smith is entitled
to relief."

The ruling involved a form of jury instructions no longer in
use in Texas -- it automatically imposed the death penalty
if jurors decided a defendant committed a deliberate murder
and probably would commit future violent crimes.

-snip-


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0624773520070425

[pinkpops]

1. 5 -4 decision. Let me guess who the 4 are...

[ShortnFiery]

2. Yes, aren't we glad that our Democratic Senators "kept their powder dry" ...

by not Filibustering Alito? :eyes:

[jobycom]

3. Alito was going to be confirmed even if they filibustered him. nt

[endarkenment]

9. How's that? nt.

[jobycom]

12. Repubs were going to nuke the filibuster and confirm him.

The only options were: Dems filibuster, causing the Repubs to take away all future options to filibuster, or the Dems allow the vote, and maintain the filibuster. Either option resulted in Alito.

[endarkenment]

14. Sure they were.

But suppose you were right and they were not bluffing about changing the rules? Gee how would those new rules be working right now?

They bluffed and we folded. We chose the only option that guaranteed defeat.

[jobycom]

17. This might surprise you

but there are people in the Senate who are pretty good at what they do. Reid knew for sure--not speculation, not wistful thinking--what the Republicans would do. That's his job.

We had no options. Alito was confirmed. It was done. He was on the Supreme Court. Nothing could stop that. Not your assurances that the Republicans were bluffing, not the Democrats wishing really, really, really hard that it wasn't so, not the intense conviction and will of people who really, really, really wanted Alito defeated. It was done. The only question was whether we lost the power to filibuster, or kept it. We chose to keep it rather than making an empty, symbolic gesture that might come back to haunt us.

[ShortnFiery]

11. That's NOT the point. I submit that the Democrats would have won even MORE seats

in the mid-term election if they would have Filibustered Alito, even if it turned out to be only a statement - it would have been powerful.

This constant, IMO, GUTLESS WONDER attitude of "keeping our powder dry" is trashing our democratic party. :(

[jobycom]

13. Or fewer seats, if the voters in moderate districts thought the Democrats were being petulant.

You can speculate on what you think might have happened, but you don't know. Bottom line, we got Alito either way. One way we kept the filibuster option, the other way we lost it. As maligned as the filibuster has been the last couple of decades, voters may have given Repubs credit for nuking it.

The only people who would have been happy with our symbolic filibuster against Alito already vote Democratic. We'd have gained nothing, and lost something. That's not usually a good investment.

[endarkenment]

15. Petulant?

The republicans would have been in the position of changing the rules of the game because they weren't winning.

[jobycom]

16. That might convince you.

But there is no proof that's how the voters would take it.

[endarkenment]

20. There is no proof that they wouldn't either.

Your argument has been reduced to "you don't know what might have been", which is a bit silly.

What happened was that we opted for sure defeat and got the hideous abortion decision of last week. We did not even give ourselves a chance to win.

[jobycom]

21. That's exactly what I'm telling YOU.

You're argument was that if we had filibustered Alito, we'd have lost the filibuster but gained more senate seats. Your thread title, that there is no proof either way, is exactly my point. We might have gained seats, we might have lost them. Your first point, that if we had filibustered we'd have picked up more senate seats, was an invalid argument.

You seem to be under some mistaken idea that there was a chance that Alito wouldn't have been confirmed. He was absolutely already confirmed. Our only option was to keep or lose the filibuster. Either choice gave us Alito. We chose to lose as little as we could. There was no "chance to win." There was no opting for "sure defeat." The defeat had already happened. It is exceedingly rare that a vote goes to either floor of Congress without already being decided. It's like pro wrestling. The decision is already made before they step into the ring. The floor show is for entertainment purposes only. Rarely, certainly not in this case, there is some doubt. The job of the party leaders in each branch of Congress is to be sure of their votes. You might have had some hope that we would filibuster and the Republicans would chicken out of a move that cost them nothing to make. But Reid did not. Reid knew what the outcome would be, and he knew the vote total, even if it was never cast.

[kath]

18. I loves, loves, LOVES me that dry powder!!! Thanks, Dems!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

4. Great news

Even if it was far to close a vote considering the material they were reviewing.

[EST]

5. And here we have the really telling quote:

"A U.S. appeals court rejected their appeals. The Supreme Court overturned that decision and concluded the jury instructions and the process were so flawed that the two death sentences must be overturned.

The court's conservatives -- Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- dissented in all three cases." (Bolding mine)


Is it possible with a democratic president a new chief justice could be named? These creeps need to be disenabled and disqualified.

[madrchsod]

7. yes ---there will be two up in the next few years

[Kelvin Mace]

8. It is unlikely we will be rid of the Scalia Five

unless we impeach a few. Scalia should be impeached for refusing to recuse himself from a case he was personally involved in.

[Hawaii Hiker]

10. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, & Alito

will ALWAYS support the conservative position on ANY issue....I mean, in last weeks abortion ruling, Mickey Mouse & Donald Duck could have been the administrations attorneys & they would have ruled for the anti-abortion side..They'll always vote anti-abortion, they'll always vote against First Amendment type issues, they'll always favor the conservative position, PERIOD!....

Instead of that bull-shit term "strict constructionists", a better term conservatives should use describing the kinds of judges they want are "robots" - programmed to rule for the conservative side everytime, as that's what those 4 justices are - F-ing robots!.....

[xchrom]

6. and it happened in texas -- sweet.

[Doctor_J]

19. WTF?

"if jurors decided a defendant committed a deliberate murder and probably would commit future violent crimes."

even if the jury were made up of 12 criminal psychiatrists, wouldn't a life sentence pretty much prevent the convict from committing violent crimes?