sherri13
06-20-2002, 11:31 AM
In an unusual move, the Collin County, Texas, district attorney's office made
an attempt to intervene in Victor Hugo Saldano's federal habeas corpus case,
arguing that the Texas office of the attorney general wrongly confessed error
in the death row defendant's trial. On June 4, the district attorney's office
filed a motion to intervene in the high-profile petition pending before U.S.
District Judge Richard Schell of Beaumont.
Defending federal habeas petitions filed by Texas death row inmates is
normally the responsibility of the state attorney general -- a civil duty
that district attorneys rarely object to. But the district attorney's office
complains in its motion that the attorney general is not representing the
best interests of the state in the case.
Saldano -- who seeks a new punishment hearing -- sits on death row for the
1995 abduction, robbery and shooting death of Paul King. In 2000, Texas
Attorney General John Cornyn confessed error in Saldano v. Texas because Dr.
Walter Quijano, former chief psychologist for the state prison system,
testified in Saldano's 1996 trial that a defendant's race or ethnicity should
be considered by a jury in deciding whether to assess the death penalty.
According to appellate rulings, Quijano testified that, in his opinion, one
of the factors associated with a defendant's future dangerousness is his race
or ethnicity.
Cornyn, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, has said that "inviting" a
jury to consider a defendant's race should play no part in a fair system of
criminal justice. Saldano is a native of Argentina.
Cornyn's position in Saldano has fueled at least five other death row
defendants seeking federal habeas relief for cases in which Quijano
testified, says John A. Stride, an assistant district attorney in Collin
County, Texas.
The U.S. Supreme Court remanded Saldano's case to the Court of Criminal
Appeals in 2000 in light of Cornyn's confession of error. Yet on remand, the
Court of Criminal Appeals ruled earlier this year that it could not consider
the confession of error because it was contrary to Texas' procedural law for
making a claim on appeal. Because Saldano's attorneys did not object to
Quijano's testimony at trial, the issue was not preserved on appeal,
according to the court's opinion.
POLICY OR LAW?
In their motion to intervene in the federal case, Collin County District
Attorney Tom O'Connell and Stride, the office's appellate chief, accuse the
attorney general of following political will instead of the law in Saldano.
"[Cornyn] has for reasons grounded in his perception of advantageous policy,
refused to defend the Court of Criminal Appeals' considered and consistent
application of the law," the motion alleges.
The district attorneys argue that Cornyn cannot take a position contrary to
state prosecutors in a federal habeas case.
"If [Cornyn] does not have the statutory authority to make a waiver that
prejudices the rights of the state and cannot bind state officials against
their wishes, he does not have the authority in the instant case to waive the
procedural bar and confess error against [the district attorney's office's]
wishes," the motion states.
To shore up their opposition to the attorney general's stance, O'Connell and
Stride also submitted an amicus brief with state prosecuting attorney Matthew
Paul.
"Simply put, the [attorney general's] representation of the State of Texas in
this particular case is no representation at all," the amicus brief states.
But Jane Shepperd, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, says, "Making sure
that race isn't a factor in life and death decisions isn't a matter of policy
preferences, it's the law." Shepperd says the office declines further comment
on the motion to intervene. Cornyn was expected to file a formal response
this week.
In a March 13 press conference, Cornyn said the Court of Criminal Appeals
opinion rejecting Saldano's appeal "reeks with injustice." He said Saldano
may deserve the death penalty, but not because of his heritage or ethnicity.
PROTECTING THE CASE
Stanley Schneider, who represents Saldano, says in federal court Cornyn
represents the best interests of the people of Texas, not prosecutors.
"The attorney general has taken a very courageous position. He's saying, 'We
cannot execute someone if it's possible that race was a factor,' " says
Schneider, of Houston's Schneider & McKinney, who filed a response last week
opposing the district attorneys' attempt to intervene in the case. "He
represents all of Texas regardless of race.
"It's only the prosecutors that are upset about what the attorney general is
doing," Schneider says. "It's not the people of Texas."
Stride says his office intervened because it felt it had to protect its case.
"When it comes back from the federal court, the federal attorneys are off the
case, and we're back on it," Stride says. "And we have to deal with what's
left."
Harris County prosecutors attempted to intervene in a similar federal habeas
case in which Cornyn confessed error because of Quijano's testimony.
However, without comment on March 28, 2001, U.S. District Judge Vanessa
Gilmore of Houston rejected the Harris County district attorney's office's
attempts to intervene in the habeas corpus case of Eugene Broxton, another
Texas death row inmate. Broxton's case is pending in the federal system, says
Roe Wilson, chief of the post-conviction writs division for the Harris County
district attorney's office.
Quijano's testimony was brought to light in Saldano and spurred similar
habeas litigation in numerous other cases in which he testified. Two other
death row defendants from Collin County also filed federal writs and won new
sentencing hearings, Stride says. Both of those defendants were resentenced
to death, Stride says.
an attempt to intervene in Victor Hugo Saldano's federal habeas corpus case,
arguing that the Texas office of the attorney general wrongly confessed error
in the death row defendant's trial. On June 4, the district attorney's office
filed a motion to intervene in the high-profile petition pending before U.S.
District Judge Richard Schell of Beaumont.
Defending federal habeas petitions filed by Texas death row inmates is
normally the responsibility of the state attorney general -- a civil duty
that district attorneys rarely object to. But the district attorney's office
complains in its motion that the attorney general is not representing the
best interests of the state in the case.
Saldano -- who seeks a new punishment hearing -- sits on death row for the
1995 abduction, robbery and shooting death of Paul King. In 2000, Texas
Attorney General John Cornyn confessed error in Saldano v. Texas because Dr.
Walter Quijano, former chief psychologist for the state prison system,
testified in Saldano's 1996 trial that a defendant's race or ethnicity should
be considered by a jury in deciding whether to assess the death penalty.
According to appellate rulings, Quijano testified that, in his opinion, one
of the factors associated with a defendant's future dangerousness is his race
or ethnicity.
Cornyn, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, has said that "inviting" a
jury to consider a defendant's race should play no part in a fair system of
criminal justice. Saldano is a native of Argentina.
Cornyn's position in Saldano has fueled at least five other death row
defendants seeking federal habeas relief for cases in which Quijano
testified, says John A. Stride, an assistant district attorney in Collin
County, Texas.
The U.S. Supreme Court remanded Saldano's case to the Court of Criminal
Appeals in 2000 in light of Cornyn's confession of error. Yet on remand, the
Court of Criminal Appeals ruled earlier this year that it could not consider
the confession of error because it was contrary to Texas' procedural law for
making a claim on appeal. Because Saldano's attorneys did not object to
Quijano's testimony at trial, the issue was not preserved on appeal,
according to the court's opinion.
POLICY OR LAW?
In their motion to intervene in the federal case, Collin County District
Attorney Tom O'Connell and Stride, the office's appellate chief, accuse the
attorney general of following political will instead of the law in Saldano.
"[Cornyn] has for reasons grounded in his perception of advantageous policy,
refused to defend the Court of Criminal Appeals' considered and consistent
application of the law," the motion alleges.
The district attorneys argue that Cornyn cannot take a position contrary to
state prosecutors in a federal habeas case.
"If [Cornyn] does not have the statutory authority to make a waiver that
prejudices the rights of the state and cannot bind state officials against
their wishes, he does not have the authority in the instant case to waive the
procedural bar and confess error against [the district attorney's office's]
wishes," the motion states.
To shore up their opposition to the attorney general's stance, O'Connell and
Stride also submitted an amicus brief with state prosecuting attorney Matthew
Paul.
"Simply put, the [attorney general's] representation of the State of Texas in
this particular case is no representation at all," the amicus brief states.
But Jane Shepperd, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, says, "Making sure
that race isn't a factor in life and death decisions isn't a matter of policy
preferences, it's the law." Shepperd says the office declines further comment
on the motion to intervene. Cornyn was expected to file a formal response
this week.
In a March 13 press conference, Cornyn said the Court of Criminal Appeals
opinion rejecting Saldano's appeal "reeks with injustice." He said Saldano
may deserve the death penalty, but not because of his heritage or ethnicity.
PROTECTING THE CASE
Stanley Schneider, who represents Saldano, says in federal court Cornyn
represents the best interests of the people of Texas, not prosecutors.
"The attorney general has taken a very courageous position. He's saying, 'We
cannot execute someone if it's possible that race was a factor,' " says
Schneider, of Houston's Schneider & McKinney, who filed a response last week
opposing the district attorneys' attempt to intervene in the case. "He
represents all of Texas regardless of race.
"It's only the prosecutors that are upset about what the attorney general is
doing," Schneider says. "It's not the people of Texas."
Stride says his office intervened because it felt it had to protect its case.
"When it comes back from the federal court, the federal attorneys are off the
case, and we're back on it," Stride says. "And we have to deal with what's
left."
Harris County prosecutors attempted to intervene in a similar federal habeas
case in which Cornyn confessed error because of Quijano's testimony.
However, without comment on March 28, 2001, U.S. District Judge Vanessa
Gilmore of Houston rejected the Harris County district attorney's office's
attempts to intervene in the habeas corpus case of Eugene Broxton, another
Texas death row inmate. Broxton's case is pending in the federal system, says
Roe Wilson, chief of the post-conviction writs division for the Harris County
district attorney's office.
Quijano's testimony was brought to light in Saldano and spurred similar
habeas litigation in numerous other cases in which he testified. Two other
death row defendants from Collin County also filed federal writs and won new
sentencing hearings, Stride says. Both of those defendants were resentenced
to death, Stride says.