Post by Anja on Jun 10, 2006 20:26:00 GMT -5
Judge refuses to remove DA in Cantu probe----Prosecutor was the judge 13
years ago who set the execution date
In San Antonio, a judge ruled Friday that he has no power to remove Bexar
County District Attorney Susan Reed from a death penalty investigation,
even though critics say she has a clear conflict of interest when it comes
to examining allegations that a San Antonio man may have been wrongfully
executed.
The ruling momentarily settled a dispute over who should delve into
questions about whether Ruben Cantu was innocent when he was executed in
1993. Critics have challenged Reed because her role in the case has
changed over time.
She reopened the case last year after a Houston Chronicle investigation
reported that three witnesses had come forward claiming firsthand
knowledge of Cantu's innocence. But 13 years ago, as a judge, she reviewed
one of his appeals and ultimately set his execution date.
The issue was forced into court Friday by Cantu's co-defendant David
Garza, an inmate who has told conflicting stories over the years. Garza
now insists Cantu was innocent, but doesn't trust Reed to fairly
investigate and so requested that a special prosecutor be appointed in her
place.
Garza's concerns about Reed's dual roles were echoed in a letter that his
attorney, Keith S. Hampton, tried to enter into evidence at Friday's
hearing. In it, 22 professors of legal ethics from across the country
concluded that the district attorney and her staff should be disqualified.
Hoping she would admit to an emotional stake in the case, Hampton forced
Reed to testify, a move prosecutors resisted, saying it was a ploy to
intimidate and harass her. But Reed appeared less intimidated than
irritated as she listened to the lawyer's questions.
"As you sit here today," Hampton asked Reed, "do you have any knowledge
that leads you to believe you ordered the execution of an innocent man?"
Reed didn't directly answer. She said she wasn't a witness in the case and
couldn't draw any conclusions about Cantu's guilt or innocence this early
in the investigation.
DA scolds lawyer
Asked if her investigators would examine her own role in the case as a
judge, Reed said she didn't see why they should.
"I didn't do anything criminal in this case. Don't look at me like that,
counsel," she added, scolding the defense lawyer. "I didn't sit in the
witness chair and lie."
Reed was referring to Juan Moreno, the lone eyewitness who testified
convincingly against Cantu years ago, but now says he lied after police
repeatedly pressured him into accusing Cantu, who was 17 at the time of
crime.
In 1985, he was convicted of murdering one man, Pedro Gomez, and
critically wounding Moreno, who was shot multiple times, but survived.
Apart from Reed's 10 minutes on the witness stand, prosecutors did
relatively little talking. Most of the roughly 90-minute hearing was
dominated by State District Judge Mark R. Luitjen's questioning of
Hampton.
Repeatedly, Hampton tried to persuade the judge that even Reed's limited
role in sending Cantu to the execution chamber made her "the exact wrong
person in the universe to investigate this case."
State's role examined
Supporting his argument, Hampton offered the letter from 22 law
professors, who said Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
prohibit lawyers and their coworkers from taking part of any case which
they may have previously ruled on as a judge.
"The state's paramount interest is not to convict but to see that justice
is done," one of the professors, Robert P. Schuwerk of the University of
Houston Law Center, said by phone. "If fulfilling that interest would
expose the judge as a person who made a fatal error, literally, signing
the death warrant of someone who wasn't guilty, that seems to create a
conflict between the judge's personal interest and the state's interest in
seeing that justice was done."
Letter called hearsay
Prosecutors, however, objected to the professors' letter as hearsay and,
outside the courtroom, Reed's chief deputy ridiculed the notion that the
district attorney should be a suspect in her own investigation. First
Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said Reed's judicial role in the
Cantu case was minimal and that she simply followed the law when she set
his execution date.
"It's ridiculous," Herberg said. "A judge doing her job is not criminally
liable for anything."
Ultimately, Judge Luitjen said he could find nothing in the law permitting
judges to remove prosecutors from their own investigations, at least not
prior to an indictment being issued.
Luitjen said judges have no more control over prosecutors' investigations
than they do over investigations in police departments or sheriff's
deputies.
"We don't have that power and shouldn't," he said. If Reed has a conflict
of interest, the judge said, "that will be her decision to make."
(source: Houston Chronicle)
years ago who set the execution date
In San Antonio, a judge ruled Friday that he has no power to remove Bexar
County District Attorney Susan Reed from a death penalty investigation,
even though critics say she has a clear conflict of interest when it comes
to examining allegations that a San Antonio man may have been wrongfully
executed.
The ruling momentarily settled a dispute over who should delve into
questions about whether Ruben Cantu was innocent when he was executed in
1993. Critics have challenged Reed because her role in the case has
changed over time.
She reopened the case last year after a Houston Chronicle investigation
reported that three witnesses had come forward claiming firsthand
knowledge of Cantu's innocence. But 13 years ago, as a judge, she reviewed
one of his appeals and ultimately set his execution date.
The issue was forced into court Friday by Cantu's co-defendant David
Garza, an inmate who has told conflicting stories over the years. Garza
now insists Cantu was innocent, but doesn't trust Reed to fairly
investigate and so requested that a special prosecutor be appointed in her
place.
Garza's concerns about Reed's dual roles were echoed in a letter that his
attorney, Keith S. Hampton, tried to enter into evidence at Friday's
hearing. In it, 22 professors of legal ethics from across the country
concluded that the district attorney and her staff should be disqualified.
Hoping she would admit to an emotional stake in the case, Hampton forced
Reed to testify, a move prosecutors resisted, saying it was a ploy to
intimidate and harass her. But Reed appeared less intimidated than
irritated as she listened to the lawyer's questions.
"As you sit here today," Hampton asked Reed, "do you have any knowledge
that leads you to believe you ordered the execution of an innocent man?"
Reed didn't directly answer. She said she wasn't a witness in the case and
couldn't draw any conclusions about Cantu's guilt or innocence this early
in the investigation.
DA scolds lawyer
Asked if her investigators would examine her own role in the case as a
judge, Reed said she didn't see why they should.
"I didn't do anything criminal in this case. Don't look at me like that,
counsel," she added, scolding the defense lawyer. "I didn't sit in the
witness chair and lie."
Reed was referring to Juan Moreno, the lone eyewitness who testified
convincingly against Cantu years ago, but now says he lied after police
repeatedly pressured him into accusing Cantu, who was 17 at the time of
crime.
In 1985, he was convicted of murdering one man, Pedro Gomez, and
critically wounding Moreno, who was shot multiple times, but survived.
Apart from Reed's 10 minutes on the witness stand, prosecutors did
relatively little talking. Most of the roughly 90-minute hearing was
dominated by State District Judge Mark R. Luitjen's questioning of
Hampton.
Repeatedly, Hampton tried to persuade the judge that even Reed's limited
role in sending Cantu to the execution chamber made her "the exact wrong
person in the universe to investigate this case."
State's role examined
Supporting his argument, Hampton offered the letter from 22 law
professors, who said Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
prohibit lawyers and their coworkers from taking part of any case which
they may have previously ruled on as a judge.
"The state's paramount interest is not to convict but to see that justice
is done," one of the professors, Robert P. Schuwerk of the University of
Houston Law Center, said by phone. "If fulfilling that interest would
expose the judge as a person who made a fatal error, literally, signing
the death warrant of someone who wasn't guilty, that seems to create a
conflict between the judge's personal interest and the state's interest in
seeing that justice was done."
Letter called hearsay
Prosecutors, however, objected to the professors' letter as hearsay and,
outside the courtroom, Reed's chief deputy ridiculed the notion that the
district attorney should be a suspect in her own investigation. First
Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said Reed's judicial role in the
Cantu case was minimal and that she simply followed the law when she set
his execution date.
"It's ridiculous," Herberg said. "A judge doing her job is not criminally
liable for anything."
Ultimately, Judge Luitjen said he could find nothing in the law permitting
judges to remove prosecutors from their own investigations, at least not
prior to an indictment being issued.
Luitjen said judges have no more control over prosecutors' investigations
than they do over investigations in police departments or sheriff's
deputies.
"We don't have that power and shouldn't," he said. If Reed has a conflict
of interest, the judge said, "that will be her decision to make."
(source: Houston Chronicle)