Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 56 of 56

Thread: Randy Ethan Halprin - Texas Death Row

  1. #51
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mastro Titta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Prato, Italy
    Posts
    1,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Fact View Post
    That might be the case if the the rules of professional conduct held prosecutors to the same standard as defense attorneys, but they don't.

    The Supreme Court is (rightly) unambiguous that a personally biased judge cannot be harmless error. It helps you just as much as it helps Halprin.
    I think you're missing the point. Judge Cunningham can be antisemite or racist, and he even may have born a personal disdain for the defendant for such reasons. BUT - and this is a big but - Halprin needed to prove that Judge Cunningham biases influenced his performance at trial in a way that factually penalized the defendant, and prevented him from receiving a fair trial. It's something deeply different.

    Now, I remember that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Halprin had the burden to factually prove not only that Judge Cunningham was antisemite, not only that Judge Cunningham didn't like him for being a Jew, but that Judge Cunningham's concrete actions during his trial irreparably ruined his chances of receiving a fair sentence for his crimes. And Halprin couldn't prove such a fact in the slightest. This was what Halprin needed to prove, only this, and couldn't.

    This case is not that different from Alan Miller's. He may very well have chosen nitrogen hypoxia in 2018, but couldn't prove it. The burden of proof was his, and his only.
    Last edited by Mastro Titta; 09-29-2022 at 02:46 AM.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Frequent Poster Fact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    486
    No, all Halprin has to prove is that the judge was biased. It seems like there's no real dispute that he did. A biased judge is a structural defect and no showing of prejudice is required to prevail. This is well-settled law dating back to the 20s.

  3. #53
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mastro Titta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Prato, Italy
    Posts
    1,275
    I do not agree with your interpretation of the word "biased". For the same reason, an active homosexual defendant should be given a new trial because the judge was a traditional Catholic, on the basis that Catholicism considers homosexuality a sin? We all know where such an interpretation of "bias" might (and will) lead in this era of woke frenzy.

    I will add something else here: what if the counsel - and we all know the extreme creativity of certain counsels - asks a new trial for their client, a pedophile rapist or mass murderer, because the judge publicly expressed their disdain against pedophile rapists or mass murderers? Is not that far from what Nikolas Cruz's defense team is already suggesting, and are you sure that some activist from the bench would not agree sooner or later?

  4. #54
    Senior Member Frequent Poster Fact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    486
    If the traditionalist Catholic judge referred to the defendant as "the f*cking homo," then I think it is you can say that he is personally biased against the defendant based on his religion. His religious, moral, or philosophical views on homosexuality are irrelevant otherwise. In this case, it seems to be undisputed that the Judge referred to the defendant specifically as "the f*cking Jew." That is pretty clearly an expression personal bias against a defendant that is inappropriate for any judge.

  5. #55
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mastro Titta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Prato, Italy
    Posts
    1,275
    Well, you say that such "religious, moral or philosophical views on homosexuality" are "irrelevant". A counsel (or an appellate judge) may (and sooner or later will) have a different opinion, and therefore ask (or grant) a new trial on the basis that the trial judge thinks that the defendant will burn in Hell (which is the theological consequence of a life of sin, according to the traditional Catholic doctrine). We stand before a very slippery slope, my friend.

    Secondly, yeah, Judge Cunningham anti-semitism is undisputed. What is far from being undisputed is the fact that his animus was directed eminently towards and against Randy Ethan Halprin as an individual and a defendant. From the court records filed by the State before Sharen Wilson "retirement syndrome" kicked in, it appears that the entire thing is based on the testimony of Cunningham's sibling, who appears to have an ongoing financial feud against his brother (hence, a personal interest in a character assassination), and a number of hearsays and suggestions which is quite difficult to say that are supported by actual facts, as you can read by yourself in the attached memorandum.

    The point is: Randy Halprin is a convicted felon, a ruthless criminal who partake in the most infamous prison break of the entire history of the State of Texas , who committed a string of armed robberies and other violent crimes during such prison break, who massacred a police officer and was rightfully convicted and sentenced to death. Is it right for you to throw away years of work and a rightful death sentence against a clearly guilty man, humiliating and revictimizing Officer Hawkins' family, for a couple of words that someone alleges to have heard Judge Cunningham pronounce? If your answer is in the affermative, we agree to have a drastically different idea of justice.

    For further clarifications, here is the attached memorandum, with which I concur in full: https://obpublicaccess.dallascounty....rideFormat=PDF

  6. #56
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mastro Titta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Prato, Italy
    Posts
    1,275
    The trial court, in the person of Judge Lela Mays, has once again recommended a new trial for Randy Halprin. Now the ball is in the TCCA's court.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/16hH...EQ-e7Wr-A/view

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •