Hannah Overton Will Be Home for Christmas

Readers may remember that I’ve followed the Hannah Overton case for some time.  Her capital murder conviction was rightly overturned in September.  But her release did not come until yesterday’s bond hearing.

The three month delay in her release is hard to excuse.  But part of the delay was her defense team’s wise and successful effort to get Judge Jose Longoria recused.  He presided over the 2007 trial and has demonstrated he cannot be trusted to be a fair judge of this case.

One result of said recusal is the success of yesterday’s bond hearing.  Bond was set at a reasonable $50,000 with no onerous conditions.  So, finally, Hannah Overton is home with her family after seven long years.

Nueces County DA Mark Skurka has said he intends to retry Overton for capital murder.  But a development during the bond hearing would make much a foolish task even more difficult:

Arguably the most dramatic moment of the hearing came when Hannah’s attorneys revealed that one of the state’s star witnesses at trial, Dr. Alexandre Rotta—who had treated Andrew on the night he was brought to the hospital in 2006 in a coma—had recently contacted Hannah’s defense team. Dr. Rotta told Hannah’s attorneys in an email that seven years after Hannah’s trial, her conviction still kept him up at night. This complicates matters for Nueces County District Attorney Mark Skurka, who has vowed to retry Hannah on capital murder charges. The fact that key prosecution witnesses such as Dr. Rotta— along with Dr. Edgar Cortes , another physician who examined Andrew on the night he was admitted to the hospital—now question Hannah’s conviction casts doubt on whether Skurka can win his case . . . .

Skurka would be wiser to clean up his office.  Yet another indication of the corruption of the Nueces County DA’s office has come out.  Eric Hillman is suing said office.  The former prosecutor claims he was fired for following the law:

Eric Hillman prosecuted drunk driving cases, but, when he uncovered a witness who had the potential to help someone he was prosecuting, he claims his bosses told him not to share that information with the other side.

 He did and the lawsuit he filed Monday claims it cost him his job.

"It is unlawful to fire or terminate an employee because they refuse to commit a criminal act and that's exactly what happened here," said Hillman's attorney, Amie Pratt with the Gale Law Group.

Prosecutors are required by law to share any evidence that may help the defense.  This legal requirement was also alleged to have been violated in the 2007 Hannah Overton trial. 

Was that violation inadvertent and isolated?  I think not.  And I am not alone.

[Hillman’s] attorneys say this case could point to bigger problems in the pursuit of justice in Nueces County.

"Nueces County seems to be in favor of withholding evidence from defense counsel which is a huge problem," Pratt said.

More on the Hannah Overton Ruling

Yesterday morning, I greatly rejoiced in the overturning of Hannah Overton’s absurd murder conviction.  Now I’ve had some time to digest it.  With the caveat that I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, I find the following most interesting.

Pamela Colloff, who has done a praiseworthy job of following this story through the years, posted a good summary of the case and of the ruling yesterday evening.  If you are not familiar with this case, I would definitely start there.

I think the opinions themselves are also well worth reading.  And they are neither long nor hard to read. 

The lead opinion, to which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed by a 7-2 margin, pointedly overturns the conviction on narrow grounds as conservative appeals judges are wont to do.  Judge Lawrence Meyers writes that Overton’s Defense greatly erred in not presenting Dr. Michael Moritz, an expert on salt poisoning and pica, to testify. He contends this omission meets the tests of determining ineffective counsel, and then in effect says that’s all we need to rule.

But the conclusion is rather pointed in saying what is left unsaid:

Because we are granting relief on Applicant’s first claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, there is no need for us to address the second issue of whether the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. We reverse Applicant’s conviction and remand her case to the trial court for a new trial.

A very interesting concurring opinion by three of the judges just as pointedly says the unsaid.  It in effect says that the issue of ineffective counsel is enough to rule, but we are going to talk about the prosecution anyway.  In their own words:

The majority does not address applicant’s Brady claims because it grants relief based on one of her ineffective assistance of counsel claims. It is helpful, however, to place that ineffective-assistance claim within the broader context of applicant’s claims concerning the fundamental unfairness of her trial.

And they are withering in critiquing the conduct of the prosecution in the Overton trial, especially in withholding exculpatory (Brady) evidence from the Defense.  They certainly do not hold much back on the subject of lead prosecutor Sandra Eastwood:

At the habeas hearing, the lead prosecutor conceded that, during this 2007 trial, she was an alcoholic who was also taking prescription diet pills that affected her memory. She was later fired by the District Attorney (who had been the second-chair prosecutor during this trial) for unrelated ethical violations. During the habeas hearing, the prosecutor repeated seventy-two times that she did not recall or did not know the answers to questions concerning the investigation or trial of applicant. She could not remember documents that she had written during the trial and did not recognize her handwriting; she did not remember writing the e-mails that came from her e-mail address, nor receiving other e-mails at that address; she could not remember if she saw any vomit when she previewed the evidence with one of applicant’s counsel before trial, and she did not remember asking the police to have it tested.

The second-chair prosecutor (later appointed as the District Attorney by the Governor) testified that the lead prosecutor told her that “she would do anything it would take to get an advantage over the Defense,” including sending a “spy” to applicant’s church group to learn the defense strategy. The second-chair prosecutor testified that the lead prosecutor was not ethical and was “not truthful.” She said that the lead prosecutor told her that no vomit samples had been saved as evidence. She said that she was “concerned with the fact that [the lead prosecutor] was violating the Court’s orders.”

And that’s for starters.  Again, I am not a lawyer.  But I find it remarkable the three appeals judges feel it right so to call out the prosecution when that was not necessary to make the ruling in question.  It is safe to say that they were provoked by the egregious misconduct of the Nueces County D.A.’s office.

Not only that, the three question (page 2) the jury instructions issued by trial judge Jose Longoria, although they do not mention him by name.  Those instructions have also been an issue through the years.  They certainly contributed to the over-the-top verdict of guilty of capital murder.

As for the two judges who dissented, this is the last straw for me.  If they are so blind as to think Overton received a fair trial….  Given their short opinion, they hardly seem to care and hardly address the issues raised by the majority.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is elected.  And I will never vote for Judges Keller (aka Sharon Killer) and Keasler again.  I counsel all Texans to do likewise when the time comes.

The ball is now in the court, if you will, of the current Nueces County District Attorney, Mark Skurka.  His options range from trying Ms. Overton for capital murder again to dismissing all charges against her.

Hannah Overton has already served seven years in prison for a crime she did not commit.  Even if she was criminally negligent in the death of Andrew Burd – and that is a big “if” not at all supported by the body of evidence – seven years is certainly more than enough to serve for that.

D.A. Mark Skurka did not do the right thing when her conviction was appealed.  He now has the opportunity to make some amends.  Mark Skurka should dismiss all charges against Hannah Overton post haste.

I am among those who will be watching his conduct closely.  Eight years of injustice from the Nueces County D. A.’s office is enough.

BREAKING: Hannah Overton Murder Conviction OVERTURNED

I may post more later, but I just got word that the murder conviction of Hannah Overton has been overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  The court found for her claim of ineffective counsel.

This is a great day.

Here are some previous posts on this case.

Dinesh D’Souza, Political Prisoner?

Under Obama, we are getting more and more of the benefits of Leftist regimes.  So why not political prisoners as well?

Dinesh D’Souza has been convicted of violating federal campaign finance laws.  He pleaded guilty in May and has accepted full responsibility for his violation and that very publicly.  If memory serves me right, he even did so in his latest movie, America.  And he is hardly a hardened criminal.

Yet the Feds want to put him in prison for 16 months anyway.  Now if you think that desire has nothing to do with his being compelling opponent of Obama . . . well then, you probably think the IRS is non-partisan and doesn’t target Obama’s opponents either.  Hey, every Leftist regime needs its useful idiots.

Even if D’Souza does not become a political prisoner, keep voting Democrat and political prisoners will come.

Proof That Something Really Is Wrong With Democrats

I am not known for having an especially high view of Democrats.  But a YouGov poll shocked even me.  So much so that I looked into the innards of it and checked YouGov’s record of accuracy.  And if there is something wrong with said poll, I have not found it.

Yes, yes, I know, on with it.  The poll that shocked me had 66% of Democrats approving of the indictment of Rick Perry.  As I’ve mentioned, the indictment is an outrage, raw political retaliation for Perry exercising his legitimate veto power in a manner displeasing to the Democrat Travis County DA.  Heck, it is Democrat retaliation for Rick Perry being Rick Perry, a strong Texas Republican Governor.  It is prosecutorial misconduct worthy of the Soviet Union or Putin’s Russia.

But about two-thirds of Democrats are fine with it.  I can be charitable and assume that most of those two-thirds are not informed enough to realize just what they are supporting.  But this still indicates a tendency to support abusing prosecutorial power to go after political opponents pretty much because they are political opponents.   These sort of people would fit in very well in the old Soviet Union.

I have never been a moral equivalency type.  But the Obama years have really brought home to me that it is not o. k. to be a Democrat, particularly since there is hardly any room left anymore in that party for a traditional conservative Democrat.   And the vast majority of Democrats still support Obama in spite of his regime using the power of the Federal government, particularly the IRS, to go after political opponents.  The Rick Perry indictment is not the only case of Democrats supporting the illegitimate use of raw government power to suppress political opposition.  There really is something wrong with Democrats, dangerously wrong.

Yes, I can and should try to be decent to them and love them even, as Jesus commands.  Yes (in case you are wondering), I still support their constitutional political rights, even as they greatly abuse them and attack my rights.

Yes, we all have something wrong with us – man is fallen and deeply flawed and sinful.  And it is wrong for me to have a superior attitude, as I do at times to my shame, because my sinful tendencies are different than someone else’s.  And, yes, someone can be a good person while still have areas that need working on like anger (mine), laziness, or being a Democrat.  Wisdom is often to appreciate the good qualities in people and overlook the shortcomings.

Those of us engaged in politics, particularly Christians during such a divisive time as this, need to remember the above lest we become downright noxious and harm our relationships.

But I refuse to pretend being a Democrat is o. k. any more than pretending that anger, laziness, or any other sin is o. k.  This poll confirms something really is wrong with Democrats.

The “Ridiculous” and Outrageous Rick Perry Indictment

Those who followed my twitter feed over the weekend know I can get a good rant on about the indictment of Rick Perry.  But I will try to keep this to a readable length.  As any number of good lawyers can tell you, the indictment is absurd.  The veto is part of a Texas governor’s powers, and threatening a veto is part of expected political give and take.  One prosecutor has even called out the prosecutor who talked a grand jury into the indictment:

The indictment against Perry is such a groundless, utterly shameless criminalization of politics that the prosecutor, Michael McCrum, and Travis County as a whole should be mercilessly mocked, insulted, and made to feel the pain for supporting officials willing to run the criminal justice system like a banana republic. Here is the letter that Patterico, an prosecutor himself, sent to McCrum:

Mr. McCrum,

You should be deeply ashamed of yourself. This prosecution is a joke. It is perhaps one of the most outrageous abuses of power by a prosecutor I have heard of in years. I'm a prosecutor myself - writing you on my own and not speaking for my office - and I just want you to know that your actions tar good prosecutors everywhere. Thank God you never became U.S. Attorney. I hope you lose quickly and are drummed out of public life in disgrace.

Patrick Frey

Los Angeles

Even a number of left of center people have spoken out against this indictment.  David Axelrod called it “pretty sketchy.”  Alan Dershowitz is outraged by it.  And Jonathan Chait even wrote a piece entitled “This Indictment Of Rick Perry Is Unbelievably Ridiculous”.

Which it is.  But some Democrats still have no shame and are cheerleading this travesty, namely scumbags Jim Messina and Joaquin Castro.

This indictment is part of a pattern of Democrats engaging in bogus prosecutions to take down opponents.  It is more worthy of Putin’s Russian than of America.  It also part of a problem that transcends politics – the willingness of too many prosecutors to indict for reasons other than justice and evidence.

Travis County, Texas, from whence the Perry indictment comes, has a shameful history of being a part of both patterns.  I remember that past Travis Co. DA Ronnie Earle’s indictment of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison pretty much got thrown out of court.  The trial lasted about 30 minutes with the judge instructing the jury to give a directed verdict of Not Guilty.  (I’ve never been a fan of Hutchison, by the way.)  And Earle’s conviction of Tom Delay was thrown out, but not after destroying Delay’s career.

As for the current Travis County DA, she is a corrupt drunk, convicted of DWI. (She was three times the level limit.) She should have been convicted of resisting arrest as well.  The purported reason Perry was indicted is he threatened to veto public integrity funds for her office if she did not resign.  She did not, and he did.

I thought vetoing funds to corrupt partisan power-hungry drunks is good government.  I guess to some Democrats, it is a criminal offense.

Or is standing up to Obama and running for the Republican nomination for President the real criminal offense here?

Hannah Overton Hearing Before Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Back in 2012, I mentioned the Hannah Overton case and the prosecutorial misconduct perpetrated against her.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest Texas criminal appeals court, has paid an unusual amount of attention to this case and held oral arguments on it last week.

The court has long had a reputation for not being very sympathetic to those seeking to overturn convictions.  The Presiding Judge Sharron Keller is, rightly or wrongly, rather infamous in that regard.  But the attention they have given to this case and signs of the high court’s unease with the number of wrongful convictions in Texas are good signs.

Pamela Colloff, who has followed the Overton case closely for years, has written an update which summarizes the hearing.

Please pray for Hannah Overton and her family and for a just ruling.