You appear to make an excellent point. It will be interesting how Cruz responds to this. But I think Brooks bias is evident in that he did not disclose what the prior convictions were.
Some detail from
CNN News article:
The jury found Haley guilty of being a habitual offender and recommended a sentence of 16 1/2 years -- a recommendation that the sentencing judge followed. The judge deemed Haley a "habitual offender" on the ground that he had two prior felony convictions --
one for attempted robbery, the other for delivery of amphetamines.
Now for the fly in the ointment. Under the law, Haley was not eligible to be charged as a habitual offender, because the timing of his prior felonies did not fit the statutory requirements. Unfortunately for Haley, however, his defense lawyer at trial did not notice the problem. And apparently, neither did the prosecutors.
Now for the fly in the ointment. Under the law, Haley was not eligible to be charged as a habitual offender, because the timing of his prior felonies did not fit the statutory requirements. Unfortunately for Haley, however, his defense lawyer at trial did not notice the problem. And apparently, neither did the prosecutors. True; they screwed up, but didn't show active contempt for the rule of law. Cruz doesn't have that excuse -- when the matter reached his office, it was an unambiguous obvious ironclad case of "the state has no legal basis for keeping this guy in prison as long as it has, much less continuing to hold him". It's like the difference between a judge issuing a search warrant based on a distant sighting of what appear to be a marijuana patch and cops who arrive and tear up the place even after becoming perfectly well aware that the vegetation in question actually consists of tomato plants -- the former needs to be advised to be more careful next time; the latter needs to have the book thrown at them.