Posted on 09/12/2007 4:06:08 PM PDT by decimon
HOUSTON — A man condemned for killing and beheading his common-law wife's three children had his conviction overturned Wednesday by a divided Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
In a 5-4 ruling, the state's highest criminal appeals court said John Allen Rubio's conviction and death sentence four years ago were improper because statements from his common-law wife, Angela Camacho, erroneously were allowed into evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
In a case as this, is there no other remediation that overturning a conviction?
JAG is a much higher standard and quality of person than the group I referenced.
Good on ya.
Wish I could tell you - I haven’t read the opinion yet, but assume they found it went to one of his fundamental rights (apparently the right to cross-examine witnesses), and that’s often a valid basis for reversing a conviction. Not always - and this particular Court of Criminal Appeals isn’t know for its tender heart.
Thanks - proudly serving for 22 years this December, active and reserve.
Colonel, USAFR
I’d think he’d just be arrested at the gate of the prison for same charges to be reinstated and he’ll just get a new trial won’t he ?
On the other hand were the victims members of my close circle of family or friends I’d rather have him out on the street where I could meet and greet him properly......
This guy may walk but not far IMHO........
Thanks.
If the details of the case are correct, I’d have to agree with the majority of the Appeals Court. The common-law wife was also being held as an accomplice. She provided written and videotaped testimony for officers but refused to testify at trial. The law says a defendant should be able to face and question their accusers and the court denied the defendant this right.
That the wife’s testimony was allowed but the defense was not allowed to cross-examine her is what the appeal is about and it seems to me that’s a valid reason for overturning the verdict. The defense was not able to exercise a fundamental right of a fair trial.
He’ll be retried without that testimony (or they’ll make her take the stand this time) and probably be convicted a second time.
You hate to overturn a conviction on such a heinous crime but I think it is the correct call.
The weight of the trial judge's error was too great. The introduction of written and taped statements from a witness, w/o that witness being made available for cross is not allowed. The effect of that testimony on the jury couldn't be called insignificant by the appeals court. Another trial must be held to have a jury make the determination.
This is be good news. A) They’re not letting him go, they’re just making sure his conviction is valid, and B) he’s guilty, but not everyone accused is and if it were you if I’m sure you’d want a fair trial.
Try him in an honest and fair trial, convict him, execute him.
You're probably right. But there should be a retrial or this thing is...in a cocked hat.
The headline on FoxNews's site that you linked is
Texas Court Voids Conviction of Man Found Guilty of Beheading Three Children.
Doesn't say anything about "freeing" him.
I do a cut-and-paste of all I can so I guess they changed the headline. That’s all editorial discretion.
The trial judge should be severely sanctioned for that blunder
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.