Judgment Day

From the Austin American-Statesman:

The capital murder conviction of Charles Dean Hood, who is set to be executed Tuesday, should be overturned because the judge at his 1990 trial was secretly dating the district attorney, an appeal filed Thursday alleged.

Judge Verla Sue Holland, now retired, could not have provided Hood with a fair and impartial trial while involved in a long-term intimate relationship with then-Collin County District Attorney Tom O'Connell, the appeal said. O'Connell played an active role in prosecuting Hood for the double murder that put him on death row.

Appellate lawyers tried to verify that a relationship existed [in 2004 and 2005] without success …. This summer, with a new execution date approaching, Hood's lawyers caught a break when a former assistant district attorney signed a sworn statement June 3 calling the Holland-O'Connell relationship "common knowledge" in the prosecutor's office. Matthew Goeller, now a Plano lawyer in private practice, said the relationship was in existence in 1987, when Goeller joined the district attorney's office. Goeller also said it "existed during the trial of Charles Dean Hood" and ended in 1993.

Holland and O'Connell, now in private practice in Plano, did not return calls Thursday seeking comment. According to the Texas Constitution, judges cannot sit on cases where they have a personal interest or "where either of the parties may be connected with the judge."

I was happy to read this story today in the Pocono Record (via the AP) about Governor Ed Rendell pushing for major reforms to Pennsylvania’s dog laws. The legislation has drawn significant criticism from organizations representing professional dog breeders, farmers and hunters. I’m not a PETA member. I typically have more meat in my freezer than the grocery store has in its meat section. But few things infuriate me more than animal abuse, particularly when it involves dogs.

The bill is the Rendell administration's latest effort to rid Pennsylvania of its reputation among animal-welfare advocates as a haven for so-called "puppy mills" - large-scale breeding operations that house neglected and abused dogs in cramped, unsanitary cages. It would impose specific penalties for criminal convictions and make a host of other changes intended to provide better living conditions and adequate health care in larger kennels.

It’s about damn time. This industry has been allowed to operate with almost no oversight for far too long. Regulations are pathetic at best, and the sanctions imposed on those found in violation are laughable. One would think the professional dog breeder organizations would actually have an interest in the health and safety of these animals, but instead they’re more concerned with the money involved.

Under the legislation introduced in May, commercial kennels would be defined as ones that either sell any dogs to dealers or pet shops, or sell or transfer more than 60 dogs a year. Those facilities would be required to house dogs in larger cages with solid flooring instead of wire flooring, give the animals opportunities to exercise outdoors, and provide regular veterinary examinations, among other things.

[High-paid lobbyists] testified before the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee [and stated the] proposed changes would force all commercial kennels to close and also prove burdensome for smaller facilities.

Are these people serious? Kennel owners are challenging this bill because they’ll actually have to walk these dogs, provide clean cages, and regular veterinary care? These owners are mad because they may no longer be allowed to stack dogs in cages for 24 hours a day, let them urinate and defecate all over themselves, and then give them a quick clean up and send them to pet stores with a host of underlying health problems.

I don’t feel sorry for any of these owners claiming they’ll go out of business. That’s bullshit. Those who provide adequate care will not be affected. Those who buy a few dogs, breed them until they can no longer reproduce, and skimp on cost to maximize profits may indeed see less profits, but that’s just too bad. If they cannot meet the minimum standards and are forced out of business, they don’t belong in the business to begin with. Screw them. Scumbags.

From the History Channel's website:

On this day in 1966, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Miranda v. Arizona, establishing the principle that all criminal suspects must be advised of their rights before interrogation.

The roots of the Miranda decision go back to March 2, 1963, when an 18-year-old Phoenix woman told police that she had been abducted, driven to the desert and raped. Detectives questioning her story gave her a polygraph test, but the results were inconclusive. However, tracking the license plate number of a car that resembled that of her attacker's brought police to Ernesto Miranda, who had a prior record as a peeping tom. Although the victim did not identify Miranda in a line-up, he was brought into police custody and interrogated. What happened next is disputed, but officers left the interrogation with a confession that Miranda later recanted, unaware that he didn't have to say anything at all.

The confession was extremely brief and differed in certain respects from the victim's account of the crime. However, Miranda's appointed defense attorney (who was paid a grand total of $100) didn't call any witnesses at the ensuing trial, and Miranda was convicted. While Miranda was in Arizona state prison, the American Civil Liberties Union took up his appeal, claiming that the confession was false and coerced.

The Supreme Court overturned his conviction, but Miranda was retried and convicted in October 1966 anyway, despite the relative lack of evidence against him. Remaining in prison until 1972, Ernesto Miranda was later stabbed to death in the men's room of a bar after a poker game in January 1976.

Leave it home, grandma.Gun control laws have always been a controversial issue. On one side, there are those that believe the right to bear arms is one guaranteed by our Constitution. Others, who take an opposing view, believe guns have no place in our society, outside of those used by law enforcement officers. I fit somewhere in the middle—I don’t have a problem with people keeping licensed firearms in their homes, but I believe carry permits should be severely restricted. The truth is, there are very few people who actually need to carry a firearm. This story from the Associated Press illustrates that point:

A relative of a 4-year-old South Carolina girl who accidentally shot herself with her grandmother's handgun in a Sam's Club store said Tuesday the family expects the child to be out of the hospital by week's end.

The child was riding in a shopping cart and playing with a cell phone, then grabbed the gun from her grandmother's purse and shot herself in the chest.

Authorities said the [grandma], a South Carolina magistrate, has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The Sam's Club store does not have a sign prohibiting guns inside.

Chief Magistrate Rodger Emerson Edmonds said it's common for magistrates to carry guns for protection.

"Sometimes some of the judges have to make deposits at the banks," he said. "The other reason is for self preservation to protect yourself because there are some crazies out there."

There are "some crazies" out there, and this grandma who carried a loaded handgun into Sam's Club is one of them.  I don’t buy the Chief Magistrate’s reasoning here. First off, we all make bank deposits, and I hope to never see the day where every person who goes to the bank is armed. Regarding protection, many judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys receive threats from clients, prisoners, and friends and family members of those convicted. But how often do you hear about judges and/or attorneys actually being harmed? Almost never.  And what about doctors who perform abortions, the stock guy who picked the wrong symbol and lost his client a ton of money, and local politicians?  I'd bet they receive threats too--should they be armed as well?  At the end of the day, 99.9% of the population doesn't need to carry a gun.  If you're afraid someone might harm you, go get some pepper spray and/or a taser.