Replies

My prior post had nothing to do with the punishment phase.

Actually, your prior post was ALL from the punishment phase as best as I can tell.

There was plenty of evidence to convict the SOB.

Then we should concentrate on that. I'm not fully versed on the facts of this trial, but my understanding is that the State's arson expert was integral in proving that the SOB committed the arson. If it turns out that the expert was wrong, and the jury used the expert's testimony to come to their verdict, then yes, I have a problem with the trial.

The punishment phase just reaffirms the verdict of the trial.

Actually, no. The verdict is the verdict and needs no reaffirmation. The purpose of the punishment phase is to determine what punishment is appropriate for the crime that the defendent has already been convicted or. That's why they allow some facts in the punishment phase that aren't allowed in the guilt phase - there are facts that are relevent as to whether or not the defendent is guilty and facts that are relevent as to how severe the punishment should be.

Are you going to argue that on a technicality this guilty as hell bastard should be found innocent.

I guess I'm not as convinced as you that he's guilty, although I'd have to agree that he is a bastard. Those legal "technicalities" you mention though - they are there for a reason. I'm not sure what specific technicality you are referring to in this case though - is it the idea that once someone is convicted, the case shouldn't be revisited? Or the idea that if a State's witness presents flawed testimony to a jury, it shouldn't matter?