Replies

Well a retrial is in the works.........

click
In the Rubio case, three statements Camacho made about the slayings — two in writing and one on a videotape — were offered into testimony by a police officer at Rubio's trial. The trial judge, over objections from Rubio's lawyers, allowed the testimony.
"Given Camacho's unique position as both accomplice to the crime and direct witness to (Rubio's) motivations, her specific, detailed testimony obviously had great significance," the court said.
The judges in the majority also noted Camacho herself was facing indictment for capital murder when she talked with police.
"Obviously, then, she could have been under some pressure to modify her story, given her own participation in the murders," the court said. "That is precisely the type of issue (Rubio) was not able to address on cross-examination.
"It is difficult to see how cross-examining the interrogating officers, who can only speculate as to Camacho's motives and influences to testify, would have anywhere near the same effect as cross-examining Camacho herself."
A day after Rubio was convicted for the March 2003 slayings, the same Cameron County jury decided he should be put to death.
Camacho avoided a possible death sentence by taking a plea agreement two years ago that sent her to prison with three life terms.
Rubio, 27, had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. He admitted to suffocating, stabbing and decapitating Julissa Quezada, 3; John Esthefan Rubio, 1; and Mary Jane Rubio, 2 months. The children were found were dead at the family's squalid apartment after Rubio's brother called police. The two girls had been stuffed into a plastic garbage bag. The boy was on a bed.
Rubio had told a judge he wanted to be executed but since then has pursued appeals. Lawyers raised 12 points of error from his trial. By overturning the conviction on the first point, judges did not rule on the other 11 and sent the case back to the trial court.
Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos, who was not in office at the time of the trial, said in a statement he was disappointed with the ruling and planned to retry Rubio and again seek a death sentence.
"There is sufficient evidence to uphold a conviction on a new trial," the prosecutor said.
The appeals court in Austin said while the admission of Camacho's statements did not automatically merit reversal, "the only real issue in contention at the guilt-innocence phase was (Rubio's) state of mind." The court said the primary relevant evidence came in statements from Rubio and Camacho.
"The crucial evidence to rebut (Rubio's) contention that he was not guilty by reason of insanity came almost exclusively from one source: Camacho's statements," the court noted. "We can say that her statements likely contributed to the jury's verdict of guilt, such that the error in admitting her statements at trial clearly prejudiced (Rubio's) case."
Rubio's trial lawyers said the violence and senselessness of the murders meant he had to be insane at the time. Rubio blamed a witchcraft-practicing mother and grandmother casting a spell for causing the children to become possessed, and his attorneys argued the story was almost too far-fetched for someone with an IQ of 76 to concoct. As a child, his IQ was measured at 92, which is in the normal range.
Psychiatrists testifying in the trial said Rubio's chronic drug use, especially his inhaling of spray paint, contributed to the murders.
Prosecutors suggested it was an overall life of depravity, including prostitution, drugs and a filthy apartment, that led to a decision to kill the children.
In a dissent written by Sharon Keller, the appeals court's presiding judge, and joined by two other judges, Keller said while admitting Camacho's statements into evidence was an error, it was harmless because the jury decided Rubio was not legally insane.
"Mental illness can indeed excuse criminal conduct, but only for a narrow range of offenders," she wrote. "Given the evidence in this case, it seems clear to me that John Rubio is not within that range."
A fourth judge, Lawrence Meyers, dissented from the majority ruling but did not join in Keller's opinion.