New Hearing for death Row Inmate

According to the www.austinchronicle.com, the Texas Courts of Appeals has sent back to district court the death row case of Charles Dean Hood, opining the Hood is due a new punishment hearing because his original jury was not able to adequately consider mitigating evidence that might have spared his life. Meanwhile, the larger question of whether Hood deserves a brand new trail remains unanswered. I've always opposed the death penalty. I've always believed the God is the creator of life and if it's his will, the ender of life. I've always wondered who gives a person or state the right to end a life.

Hood was convicted and sentenced to death in 1990 for the fatal shooting of Ronald Williamson and Tracie Lynn Wallace, a couple whom he lived in Plano. Hood said that he wasn't responsible for the murder, though evidence connected him to the scene of the crime.

ALthough the CCA had previously denied his requests for a new sentencing hearing, the court ruled on Feb. 24 that the "sentencing scheme" employed by the trail court had "precluded the jury from giving full consideration and effects to Hoods mitigating evidence, Judge Cathy Cochran wrote for the majority. During his trail, argues Cochran, the state put on "significant evidence" that Hood remained a threat to society, fullfilling one of the sentencing criteria leading to a death sentence rather than life in prison. But his defenders, she notes, have argued that he was never allowed to present evidence that might mitigate a death sentence, including that injuries he sustained at 3 years old - when a truck backed over him- led to significant behavior changes, that he had learning and cognitive impairments, and that he was severely beaten as a child(including with a metal pipe) Had the jury been able to consider these elements, Hood has argued, they might have imposed life instead of death. How in the world this evidence not be included in the trail? All of the evidence should have been included to determine if the injuries that he sustained played a part in his behavior and action.

Ultimately the CCA has agreed, though the decision was not with a stiff dissent written by Judge Michael Keasler - and joined by Judges Barbara Hervey and Sharon Keller - arguing that Hood could have raised this claim previously but had not, meaning he was not entitled to have it considered now. Even though the state of the law was still in fluxat the time of a previous appeal, that was no reason that Hood could not have raised the mitigating evidence issue argues Keasler. The question is "whether a claim is colorable(sufficent for appeal) to the degree, "not" whether we currently recognize it as controlling law in Texas, Keasler wrote.

What still remains to be answered is whether Hood should receive a brand new trail in his case - pending in an application before the U.S. Supreme Court. At issue is whether Hood's right to due process was violated by the fact that that the judge sitting over the trail, former CCA Judge Verla Sue Holland, had been engaged in a long time intmate sexual relationship with Hood's prosecutor, Thomas O'Connell Jr. This, Hood's defender allege, is a clear conflict of interest and should require that Hood recieve a new trail. Holland and O'Connell finally admitted the affair after being forced to testify about it when being deposed in 2008. The CCA rejected Hood's request for a new trail, concluding that he had waiting too long to raise the claim - even though Holland and Connell had kept the affair a secret for years, making it difficult, at best, for Hood to get proof he would have needed tp bring the claim to the appeals court. Hood has petitioned the Supreme Court for review; the court has not yet responed. The actions of the Judge and prosecutor to me helps merit that Hood should get a new trail. Even if the affair was going on before the case, their behavior is unacceptable. They are in positions to uphold the law.

Meanwhile, however, 21 former judges and prosecuters (including FBI Director William Sessions and former prosecuter Sam Millsap) and 30 legal ethicists have filed briefs with the Supremes in support of Hood's claim. "While the CCA's recent decision recognized a clear flaw in the punishment phase of Mr. Hood's case, it should not distract the courts or the public from the more troubling issue at the center of this case: that the judge and prosecutor admitted under oath that they had a long-term relationship prior to Hood's trail, and they intentionally kept this affair hidden for 20 years, "said Andrea Keilen, executive director of the Texas Defender Service which represents Hood. "This case requires Supreme Court intervention because the Texas (CCA) to date has ignored the obvious and outrageous constitutional violation. Mr. Hood is entitled to an entirely new trail before an impartial judge and prosecutor. Today's decision granting him a new punishment phase hearing does nothing to address or correct this egregious legal and ethical violation.