Latest news with #CourtofCriminalAppeals
The Hill
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Texas AG Paxton would get expanded powers to target elections under new law
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) would gain the right to investigate elections in Democratic districts under a new bill passed by the Texas Senate on Tuesday. H.B. 5138 now heads to Gov. Greg Abbott's (R) desk, where it joins H.B. 45, which gives Paxton broad new powers to fight 'human trafficking.' Put together, the new bills would give his office the ability to investigate alleged trafficking or election fraud in any jurisdictions — regardless of the wishes of local communities or the elected district or county attorney. Paxton has long used allegations of human trafficking to target nonprofit groups that provide aid to recent migrants. If Abbott signs the elections bill, Paxton — who has announced his intentions to primary incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R) next year — would get new powers to prosecute alleged election crimes anywhere in the state, something state courts have denied him. In 2021, the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) ruled that Paxton could only get involved in local elections if asked to by a district or county attorney, as The Texas Tribune reported, a ruling that Abbott explicitly criticized last year. That CCA ruling created a structural problem, however, for the faction of Texas Republicans, including Paxton, that has long insisted that election fraud is rife in Texas' Democrat-run jurisdictions. That didn't stop Paxton's office from raiding Democratic activists — and the candidate herself — during last year's race for a tightly contested state House district after the Democratic incumbent stepped down. The Republican in that race, former Uvalde mayor Don McLaughlin, ultimately won in a campaign that cited Paxton's investigation into his opponent, Cecilia Castellanos, as evidence of her malfeasance. Up until Tuesday's bill passage, however, the attorney general's ability to investigate local candidates like Castellanos was limited to those jurisdictions where he could find a district or county attorney to partner with — a requirement that HB 5138 would free him of. Paxton has long conflated migration and election fraud. In one notable case from last year's election, Paxton insisted Democrats had secret plans to 'illegally register noncitizens to vote in our elections,' a claim that originated in a friend-of-a-friend story on Fox News that local Republican county officials later debunked. Democrats' plan was to 'tell the cartels, 'Get people here as fast as possible, as many as possible, we're not going to make them hide anymore — we'll get them placed in the right states,'' Paxton told conservative talk show host Glenn Beck last year. 'They want to fix the election so that we have a one-party country that we can't fix.' During last year's election, Paxton also sued Bexar and Harris Counties, two of the state's largest Democratic strongholds, for voter registration drive which he claimed aimed to register noncitizens to vote.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas lawmakers pass bill to improve state's junk science law
The Brief House lawmakers approved a bill to clarify Texas' junk science law. If approved, low-income defendants would be entitled to an attorney and the Court of Criminal Appeals would be required to issue a written opinion on denied appeals. Critics of Texas' junk science law say that it isn't working as intended with its current language. AUSTIN, Texas - The Texas House on Thursday approved changes to the state's "junk science" law. The 2013 law allows a person convicted of a crime to seek relief if the evidence used against them is no longer credible. On Thursday, lawmakers advanced a bill that would make changes to the law that were suggested during an out-of-session House committee meeting. What we know Under House Bill 115, low-income defendants would be entitled to an attorney in junk science appeals. The bill would also require the Court of Criminal Appeals to issue a written opinion when a junk science appeal is denied. The bill would also require the court to consider cases that might not meet procedural requirements. A 2024 report from civil rights group Texas Defender Service showed that 38% of appeals to the court citing junk science were rejected on a procedural basis. The bar for granting relief would also be lowered to allow relief if there's a reasonable likelihood that the conviction was based on discredited science. Critics of the law say its current wording essentially forces the convicted person to prove complete innocence. The changes were among those sparked both by the Texas Defender report and the death row case of Robert Roberson. What they're saying "In reality, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals's implementation of the statute has shown inconsistency in application, a disregard for discredited scientific methods, a heavy investigative burden for people seeking relief (especially people without counsel), and a striking absence of relief in capital cases—meaning that potentially innocent people will be executed," Texas Defender said in their report. What's next The bill now heads to the Senate, but with the legislative session winding down, it is unknown if it will be heard. Texas lawmakers made headlines in October after they petitioned to delay Roberson's execution, stating the science behind his execution doesn't hold up. Roberson was convicted of killing his 2-year-old daughter in Palestine, Texas in 2002. He took her to the emergency room with a high fever, where medical staff determined her condition was consistent with shaken baby syndrome. Roberson's attorneys have challenged that diagnosis, calling it "junk science." They say Nikki died from natural causes, likely undiagnosed pneumonia. A coalition of lawmakers and the lead detective on the case have argued the science supporting Roberson's death sentence doesn't hold up. The Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence issued a subpoena on the day before Roberson's scheduled execution on Oct. 17 for the death row inmate to testify at a hearing about his case. The Supreme Court paused the execution that night to review the committee's request. An opinion from the Texas Supreme Court in November said that the committee should be allowed to hear his testimony, as long as a subpoena does not block an inevitable execution. Roberson did not appear at subsequent House committee meetings after the attorney general's office opposed the efforts to bring him to the Capitol building. The Office of the Attorney General told the State Supreme Court that doing so would present security and logistical concerns. Some relatives of the 2-year-old have criticized lawmakers for delaying Roberson's execution. The backstory Texas' junk science law was the first of its kind in 2013 and a model for other states across the country, according to legal experts. California, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada and Wyoming have similar "junk science" statutes, but it has not been studied how successful they are at overturning death penalty convictions. The 2013 law allows a person convicted of a crime to seek relief if the evidence used against them is no longer credible. At the time, it was hailed by the Legislature as a uniquely future-proof solution to wrongful convictions based on faulty science. No one facing execution has had their sentence overturned since the junk science law was enacted in 2013, according to the Texas Defender Service report. In the last 10 years, 74 applications have been filed and ruled on under the junk science law. A third of applications were submitted by people facing the death penalty. All of them were unsuccessful. Of the applications that led to relief, nearly three-quarters were for convictions related to DNA evidence, despite making up less than half of all applications. The Source Information on House Bill 115 comes from the May 14, 2025, House session. Information on Texas' junk science law comes from previous FOX 4 coverage. Information on the rates of granted relief comes from a report by civil rights group Texas Defender Service. Backstory on Robert Roberson comes from previous FOX 4 coverage.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Proposal to enhance Texas' pioneering junk science law approved by Texas House
Over a decade ago, the Texas Legislature passed a groundbreaking law to provide justice when the scientific evidence for a criminal conviction has changed or been discredited. But in a report examining appeals ruled upon in the decade since, the Texas Defender Service found last year that the so-called junk science law 'is not operating as the Texas Legislature intended,' and that the courts were applying a burden of proof that made it nearly impossible for appellants to meet. For some lawmakers, Texas death row inmate Robert Roberson became the face of that failure. On Wednesday, the Texas House sought to rectify those shortcomings. Lawmakers preliminarily approved, 118 to 10, House Bill 115 — legislation that would codify a number of recommendations advocates made to ensure the junk science law is working as intended. 'I do want to stress that this is a critical bill, and would appreciate your favorable consideration,' Rep. David Cook, R-Mansfield and author of the bill, said during a late-night committee hearing last month. The measure, which must pass another vote in the House as a formality, does not have a companion in the Senate, making its path to law unclear. The proposal emerged out of a contentious interim period of the Legislature last year, during which the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee confronted Roberson's case, seen by some lawmakers as the face of Texas' failure to properly implement the junk science law. The argument for Roberson's innocence became a political lightning rod, as committee members took extraordinary steps to delay his October execution while Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton pushed back and stood behind the conviction. Roberson was convicted of capital murder in 2003 for the death of his 2-year-old daughter Nikki, who was diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome. He was one of the first death row inmates to have his conviction set for further review under the junk science law in 2016, when the Court of Criminal Appeals directed a lower court to take a second look at his case. But in 2023, after the state argued that the science had not changed that much and a trial court agreed, the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Roberson's conviction and set an Oct. 17, 2024 execution date. Lawmakers, concerned that the courts had not meaningfully engaged with the evidence and properly applied the junk science law, managed to force a stay of execution in October. Roberson's execution date has not yet been reset, and he has a pending appeal. Still, proponents of HB 115 said the bill was meant to address broader deficiencies in the law — regardless of its application to Roberson's case. If passed, its provisions would not go into effect until December 1. The junk science law — Article 11.073 in Texas' criminal code — meant to provide a way for convicted people to obtain new trials if they can show that the underlying scientific evidence in their conviction was flawed. Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the bill in 2013 after two failed attempts to do so. 'It stood as a commitment to Texans that science in our criminal trials was not just a sword of the state, but also a shield for the wrongfully convicted and the unfairly prosecuted,' Chase Baumgartner, an attorney at the Innocence Project of Texas, testified to the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee last month. 'House Bill 115 reaffirms that commitment and shores up where our current law has fallen short.' The measure would address many of the interim committee's concerns with the law. It would entitle low-income defendants to an attorney in junk science appeals and require the state's highest criminal court to issue a written opinion when denying a junk science appeal. It would also allow the court to consider junk science appeals even if they do not meet certain procedural requirements, a provision meant to address a finding that the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected almost 40% of petitions on procedural grounds, without considering the merits of the claims. It would also clarify that the junk science law requires appellants simply to show that their conviction was based on discredited science — not to prove their innocence. The bill changes the standard of proof to a 'reasonable likelihood' that the evidence 'could have affected' a person's conviction or sentence. That is a lower bar for convicted people to clear than the law's current standard, which says that 'on the preponderance of evidence,' the defendant 'would not have been convicted' based on the debunked science. Critics said that that was virtually the same standard required to prove 'actual innocence' — a difficult case to make, especially for people behind bars. 'The current standard has been interpreted by the Court of Criminal Appeals to essentially require the elimination of any rational basis for the conviction, which is the legal actual innocence standard,' Burke Butler, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, told the committee last month. 'This is not at all what legislators intended when they originally passed the law, and for various reasons, that standard is actually impossible for most innocent people to meet.' And the bill would extend the junk science law to accept relevant evidence that was 'not reasonably available' to the defendant at trial, and that 'tends to negate' scientific evidence 'relied on by the state' at trial. In its report, the Texas Defender Services found that no one on death row has successfully used the junk science law to obtain a new trial. The report also found that the Court of Criminal Appeals had applied a higher standard of proof than required by the law, rejected a significant portion of appeals on procedural grounds and produced a 'pervasive lack' of written opinions explaining its rationale, Butler said. 'No innocent person should ever serve out a prison sentence without having their case considered on the merits,' she said. 'The fixes in HB 115 would ensure that innocent people convicted based on junk science have a genuine pathway for relief.' First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Yahoo
Murder trial of former Decatur police officer delayed until September
May 9—The murder trial of former Decatur police officer Mac Marquette was postponed Friday from June 9 to Sept. 15 after his request for a delay was granted while an appellate court reviews his petition for immunity under Alabama's Stand Your Ground law. Morgan County Circuit Judge Charles Elliott granted the delay following a request from Marquette's attorney, Brett Bloomston, of Birmingham, who asked for more time while the state Court of Criminal Appeals considers the immunity petition. Marquette, 25, was indicted for the murder of 39-year-old Steve Perkins, who was shot and killed in the front yard of his home on Ryan Drive Southwest during the early morning hours of Sept. 29, 2023. Marquette pleaded not guilty. In March, Elliott ruled following an immunity hearing that Marquette was not entitled to immunity under Alabama's Stand Your Ground Law, allowing the case to proceed to trial. Marquette's defense team challenged the ruling, filing the motion to delay the trial to allow time for an appeal of Elliott's ruling. — or 256-340-2442.
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Yahoo
Marquette moves to delay murder trial so he can appeal immunity ruling
Apr. 11—Former Decatur police officer Mac Marquette, charged with murder in the fatal shooting of Steve Perkins, on Friday filed a motion seeking a continuance of the June 9 trial date to allow him to appeal a ruling that denied him immunity. Morgan County Circuit Judge Charles Elliott ruled against Marquette's motion that he was entitled to immunity under Alabama's "Stand Your Ground" law on March 31, and in an amended order filed April 2. The same order said the trial would go forward June 9, but also said the case would be stayed "to allow Defendant adequate time to request alternative relief through the appellate courts." In Friday's motion, Marquette's attorneys said they plan to file an appeal, and they expect the Court of Criminal Appeals to take several months to render an opinion. They also said that members of the defense team have scheduling conflicts if the trial goes forward June 9. The motion says that the Morgan County District Attorney's Office does not oppose delaying the trial. Marquette killed Perkins in his front yard at about 1:50 a.m. Sept. 29, 2023, during the repossession of Perkins' truck. According to testimony at the immunity hearing, Perkins pointed a gun with an attached tactical flashlight at the tow truck driver. Marquette, who was concealed at the side of the house, then pointed a gun at Perkins and began firing when Perkins' gun pointed in his direction. — eric@ or 256-340-2435
