Ethics

Readers may recall Charles Hood, who faces execution even though the prosecutor and judge in his case have admitted to having had a secret affair prior to his trial.  (Links to previous coverage and commentary are here.) 

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled (6-3) that Charles Hood is not entitled to a new trial.  Adding to the John Grisham-like storyline, eight of the nine judges had previously served on the same bench as the judge who is at the center of the controversy. The New York Times has more on the story here, and the ruling itself is here. 

Notably, and again not surprisingly, the Texas court's order offers no legal analysis or reasoning.  It simply offers a bare bones conclusion: "We find that the allegation fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a)."  And why is that, exactly?  If a law school graduate offered that as "legal analysis," it wouldn't suffice to pass the bar exam.  Apparently, it suffices for Texas judges in capital cases when one of their former colleagues is accused of misconduct. 

This is not the first time that I've seen a state court in a capital case summarily reject a strong argument without any legal analysis, and it is unlikely to be the last.  Kudos to the dissent for actually addressing the evidence and issues that were presented.