Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 58

Thread: Bobby James Moore - Texas

  1. #11
    Senior Member CnCP Legend FFM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Moh View Post
    I wonder whether the liberal justices voted to grant cert because they have a hunch that Kennedy will vote to overturn Moore's sentence (and Buck's as well).
    All the more reason to vote the liberal thugs out in November.

  2. #12
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Justices to Review Claims From Texas Death Row Inmates

    WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court will hear appeals from two African-American death-row inmates in Texas, including one who argued his sentence was based on his race.

    The justices on Monday said they will review death sentences for inmates Bobby Moore and Duane Buck. Neither case poses a broad challenge to the death penalty.

    Moore was sentenced to death more than 35 years ago and says he is ineligible to be executed because he is intellectually disabled.

    A jury voted to sentence Buck to death after a defense expert testified that black people were more likely to commit violence. Buck's lawyers have fought for years to win a new sentencing hearing.

    Buck came close to being executed in 2001, before the justices stepped in with a last-minute reprieve.

    But the court later denied a full-blown review of Buck's case in 2014.

    This time around, the appeal focuses on a claim that Buck's legal representation was constitutionally deficient.

    He was convicted of capital murder and sent to death row for the slaying of his ex-girlfriend and a man at her Houston apartment in July 1995. During the punishment phase of Buck's 1997 trial, psychologist Walter Quijano testified under cross-examination by a Harris County prosecutor that black people were more likely to commit violence.

    Quijano, called as a defense witness, had testified earlier that Buck's personality and the nature of his crime, committed during rage, indicated he would be less of a future danger.

    Buck's case was among six in 2000 that then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, now a Republican U.S. senator, said needed to be reopened because of racially charged statements made during the trial sentencing phase. In the other five cases, new punishment hearings were held and each convict again was sentenced to death.

    The attorney general's office has said Buck's case was factually and legally different from the five others and that Buck's trial lawyers first elicited the testimony from the psychologist. They also said the racial reference was a small part of larger testimony about prison populations.

    The cases, Moore v. Texas, 15-797, and Buck v. Stephens, 15-8049, will be argued in the fall.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...mates-39639089

  3. #13
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Justice Don Willett on twitter.

    #SCOTUS clarifies it will only examine medical standards re intellectual disability in Moore v. Texas

    https://twitter.com/JusticeWillett/s...46431599513600
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  4. #14
    Senior Member CnCP Legend FFM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,363
    I'm not surprised they turned down part 2 of the petition. There was another petition in California a few weeks ago that was denied regarding a Lackey claim. However, my major concern is that if the state loses this one, we'll have to rewrite the law early next year so that the 'retards' on our death row will be re-analyzed under more 'modern' methods of determining if they are too retarded to be executed. If the thugs win, there will be a ton of remands to state court, stacking up even more frivolous appeals, as always. It's too bad Moore hasn't died on death row yet; it could have saved us a lot of time and money.

  5. #15
    Senior Member CnCP Legend CharlesMartel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    FRANCE
    Posts
    3,073
    Supreme Court to take up Texas death penalty case next term

    LUBBOCK, Texas - The United States Supreme Court will take up a Texas death penalty case in its next term.

    The court will hear the case of Bobby Moore, who was convicted of shooting and killing a Houston grocery store employee during a robbery in 1980. He has been on death row since, but his attorneys say his punishment should be reduced on the basis of intellectual disability.

    "The question isn't his guilt or innocence. The question is his punishment," said FOX34 Legal Analyst Curtis Parrish. "Should the US Supreme Court say that Bobby Moore is indeed intellectually disabled, it is likely that his punishment would be life without parole rather than the death penalty."

    In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that intellectually disabled individuals cannot be put to death, but they didn't define "intellectually disabled," instead leaving it up to each state legislature.

    "The Texas Legislature has never gotten around to that, so the Court of Criminal Appeals was left with setting out some sort of standards, and to my way of thinking, those standards are insufficient for making the type of determination we're making here," said Rick Wardroup, a capital assistance attorney with the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

    According to SCOTUS Blog, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals relied on a 1992 definition from the professional medical community. The problem is, that same community now regards the definition as out-of-date.

    "The Supreme Court generally won't legislate. They're generally going to say these are the minimum standards that we are going to have, these are the constitutional standards," Wardroup said. "I think what they're going to do is encourage the states that haven't legislated a protocol to do that, and maybe that will get through to Texas this time."

    The court's next term doesn't start until October, so a ruling is likely about a year away.

    "In the meantime, likely what we're going to see is anyone who is at that point of intellectually disabled, their execution will be put on hold," Parrish said.

    http://www.fox34.com/story/32169186/...ase-next-term#

  6. #16
    Senior Member CnCP Legend CharlesMartel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    FRANCE
    Posts
    3,073
    They might want to use the continue claim media worldwide which say that in US the afro americans are more victim over all other community

  7. #17
    Senior Member CnCP Legend CharlesMartel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    FRANCE
    Posts
    3,073
    Sentences of Jeffrey Wood, Bobby Moore add to Texas execution controversy

    Texas isn't afraid of carrying out executions, but sometimes that practice puts the state in the national spotlight.

    An appeals court last week stopped the lethal injection of 43-year-old Jeffrey Wood for his role in a fatal 1996 convenience store robbery and murder because of questions about some of the evidence in the case.

    Carrying it out as scheduled Wednesday night would have made Texas a rare case of executing someone who didn't actually carry out a killing. Wood was the getaway driver. The actual shooter, Daniel Reneau, was executed in 2002.

    And, just on the legal horizon, the case of 56-year-old Bobby James Moore is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court and waiting to throw the state's execution process back into the headlines.

    Moore went to death row for the 1980 shotgun killing of 72-year-old James "Jim" McCarble in Houston.

    The central question in Moore's case: Is he too intellectually disabled to kill? The question -- and how Texas makes such a decision -- takes on a literary bent.

    The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected his claim of intellectual disability in September 2015, saying Moore didn't meet Texas' "Briseno factors," an unscientific, seven-pronged test which a judge based on the character Lennie Smalls from John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men."

    In doing so, the appeals court reversed a lower court's ruling that tracked the scientific diagnostic criteria set forth by medical professionals, which found that Moore had intellectual disability.

    Executing the mentally disabled is unconstitutional. The catch is, each state gets to decide what constitutes mental disability.

    In Moore's case, the appeals court decided he didn't meet the standard. Moore's lawyers say a judge used an outdated standard to decide the issue.

    The state lawyers said prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions do not require the states to use clinical definitions or analyses from psychiatric organizations to determine intellectual disability.

    Moore's IQ has ranged from the 50s to the 70s in tests over the years.

    The high court hasn't set a hearing date for Moore's case yet, but it has drawn interest from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Constitution Project and the American Bar Association.

    No date has been set for the hearing and it isn't known if eight or nine justices will decide the case (that may not be known until after the presidential election).

    But, headlines and controversy are sure to follow when a decision is reached.

    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...as-9179525.php

  8. #18
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Condemned Texas inmate gets hearing before high court

    A Texas death penalty case with a literary bent is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court in November.

    The justices (eight at the moment) have scheduled the case of Bobby James Moore for a hearing on Nov. 29.

    Moore, whose 57th birthday was on Oct. 29, went to death row for the 1980 shotgun killing of 72-year-old James "Jim" McCarble in Houston.

    Moore's intellectual capacity and how Texas decides whether he's too disabled to kill are the central questions in the case.

    The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected his claim of intellectual disability in September 2015, saying Moore didn't meet Texas' "Briseno factors," an unscientific, seven-pronged test which a judge based on the character Lennie Smalls from John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men."

    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...h-10424701.php
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  9. #19
    Senior Member CnCP Legend CharlesMartel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    FRANCE
    Posts
    3,073
    U.S. Supreme Court set to hear case of Texas death row inmate

    A Texas death row inmate will get a chance this week to plead his case, possibly one final time.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing for Bobby James Moore on Tuesday, Nov. 29, the second day back from Thanksgiving for the eight justices currently serving.

    Moore, whose 57th birthday was on Oct. 29, went to death row for the 1980 shotgun killing of 72-year-old James "Jim" McCarble in Houston.

    The issues in question are Moore's intellectual capacity and how Texas decides whether he's too disabled to kill.

    The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected his claim of intellectual disability in September 2015, saying Moore didn't meet Texas' "Briseno factors," an unscientific, seven-pronged test which a judge based on the character Lennie Smalls from John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men."

    The U.S. high court declared in 2002 that executing the mentally disabled is unconstitutional. But, the court didn't lay down any bright line as to what constitutes mental disability, instead, leaving it to each to decide.

    Moore's IQ has ranged from the 50s to the 70s in tests over the years - the threshold for disability is generally considered an IQ of 70.

    The case has drawn interest from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Constitution Project and the American Bar Association. The high court will decide by late spring if the standards Texas uses are constitutional and if Moore can go to the execution chamber.

    The decision will once again put Texas, a state not shy about carrying out death sentences, back in the death penalty spotlight.

    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...-10638281.php?

  10. #20
    Senior Member CnCP Legend CharlesMartel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    FRANCE
    Posts
    3,073
    US Supreme Court questions Texas criteria for labeling death row inmates re:"mentally retarded"

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed inclined to agree with a Texas death row inmate who is challenging how that state determines whether a person is intellectually disabled and thus should be spared execution.

    The court ruled in 2002 that executing the "mentally retarded" violated the Constitution. But the justices left up to states how to define who meets that standard.

    At a hearing Tuesday, the court's liberals, joined by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, sharply questioned whether Texas's procedure was simply a way to make more people eligible for execution.

    Kennedy said the theme of death row inmate Bobby James Moore's challenge was that Texas uses a procedure that is "intended to really limit the classification of those persons with intellectual disability as defined by an almost uniform medical consensus."

    Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller responded that the state's high court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, "has never said that the purpose of these factors is to screen out individuals and deny them relief."

    Kennedy shot back, "But isn't that the effect?"

    Justice Elena Kagan, Keller's most persistent interrogator, said the Texas court inserted factors - for instance, what do neighbors say about his abilities, or whether he can effectively lie in his own self-interest - as a way around the medical consensus over what constitutes intellectual disability.

    "The genesis of these factors was that the court said the clinical standards are just too subjective and they don't reflect what Texas citizens think," Kagan said, adding that "Justice Kennedy is right about how they operate and also how they were intended to operate."

    Keller was sensitive to questions about the factors, which the Texas court introduced as a way to judge "adaptive behavior," another way of saying whether a person can go about daily life as others would.

    The Moore case has drawn attention because a Texas judge likened the factors to the "Lennie" standard, a reference to Lennie Small, the gentle but deadly fictional farmhand in John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men."

    The judge wrote that most Texas residents might agree that Lennie should be exempt from execution because of his lack of reasoning skills but that other killers might not be exempt.

    After Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a reference to the Lennie standard, Keller said it was an "aside" in the opinion. "The Lennie standard has never been part of a standard," Keller said. "That's one of the most misunderstood aspects of the briefing here."

    Moore, 57, was convicted of shooting and killing a store clerk during a 1980 robbery in Houston. His cases has had many twists and turns since then, most of them concerning his intellectual capacity.

    His attorney, Clifford M. Sloan, told the justices that at the age of 13, "Mr. Moore did not understand the days of the week, the months of the year, the seasons, how to tell time, the principle that subtraction is the opposite of addition."

    At one of his rehearings, a judge found Moore to be intellectually disabled and ineligible for the death penalty. But the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed that, saying in part that the judge had used current medical standards about defining intellectual disabilities rather than the ones it had directed lower courts to use. That was the decision the Supreme Court was reviewing.

    Sloan said Texas's approach challenges the court's 2002 ruling that "the entire category of the intellectually disabled, every person who is intellectually disabled, is exempt from execution under the Eighth Amendment," which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

    But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. chastised Sloan for his "long laundry list" of what is wrong with Texas' procedures. Sloan had persuaded the court to take the case, Roberts said, only to consider whether Texas may constitutionally prohibit the use of current medical standards and require outdated medical standards.

    But Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. were the only outspoken critics of Sloan's arguments.

    Other justices seem to think the case raised more overarching issues. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who has said he thinks that the court should reconsider whether the death penalty can be carried out in a way consistent with the Constitution, said the problem was deciding cases involving borderline intellectual disability.

    "If you want my true motive," Breyer told Sloan, "I don't think there is a way to apply this kind of standard uniformly across the country, and therefore, there will be disparities, and uncertainties, and different people treated alike, and people who are alike treated differently."

    The case is Moore v. Texas.

    - - -

    The first decision

    The Supreme Court also issued its first ruling of the term in an argued case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for her unanimous colleagues that the concept of "double jeopardy" did not prevent the government from prosecuting a bribery case from Puerto Rico.

    The complicated tale involved a Puerto Rican businessman and a senator in the local legislature. The two men had been acquitted of one bribery charge, were convicted of another, then saw that conviction thrown out on appeal because the jury had been improperly instructed about what was necessary to convict.

    The men said that the government does not get to retry them for the convictions that were overturned. But Ginsburg, reading the opinion with a voice made faint from laryngitis, said the justices disagreed.

    Of course, the defendants cannot be retried on the acquittals, she said. But they may be retried, she said, "when a jury has returned inconsistent verdicts of conviction and acquittal; the inconsistency remains even if the convictions are later vacated for legal error unrelated to the inconsistency."

    The case is Bravo-Fernandez v. U.S.

    http://www.tylerpaper.com/TP-News+St...ally-retarded#

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

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
  •