Inmate gets mistrial hearing set for 2 days AFTER execution

Message

Bob Juch · #1 Post by **Bob Juch** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:46 am

Texas death row inmate gets mistrial hearing set for 2 days AFTER his execution date.

A man found guilty of killing another man and his girlfriend had a trial before a judge who was having an affair with the DA. Somebody now thinks that may have influenced the judge - duh - so a hearing for a new trial is set. Problem is it the trial is set 2 days after the execution date. Governor has to think about a stay of execution...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 763e3.html

NellyLunatic1980 · #2 Post by **NellyLunatic1980** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:03 pm

Given the recent track record of Texas governors and executions, I wouldn't hold my breath on this inmate getting the stay.

TheCalvinator24 · #3 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:54 pm

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Given the recent track record of Texas governors and executions, I wouldn't hold my breath on this inmate getting the stay.

I'd be willing to bet that Gov. Good Hair will, in fact, issue a temporary stay under these circumstances.

macrae1234 · #4 Post by **macrae1234** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:20 pm

I can only go by what I found in an interview but does anyone else have more details

Are you guilty?

Absolutely NOT. Evidence clearly shows some others did this crime. Homicide detectives and prosecution would not go after the true suspects, that's a FACT!

Were there any outstanding circumstances about your case?

Other fingerprints at the crime scene, blood from a third party at the crime scene. Fingerprints on the safe were someone else's, and that was a safe that was broken into. The gun was never found, yet the man who kept threatening to kill the victim left his death threats on several answering machine tapes. The gun he owned was the same type as the murder weapon.

A voice analysis test wasn't performed to prove my voice was not on the 911 tape. I repeatedly asked t=for that test to be done by an expert because the jury asked to hear the 911 tape while in deliberating. Clearly what was in their minds was if my voice was on the 911 tape, I must have been there. I begged to get it performed.

Prosecutors withheld evidence in this case especially the Parrifin Test, that clearly showed I did not fire a gun. Prosecution was full of corruption.