STORY: "Murder case could set precedent in so-called 'junk science writs," by Mike Ward, published by the Houston Chronicle on June 3, 2014.
GIST: "The state's highest court for criminal matters on Wednesday took up the issue of whether a state law that allows for new trials in cases where forensic science is flawed also covers mistakes by expert witnesses. Clearly divided on the issue after it ruled last November for a new trial in a Montgomery County case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals quickly made it clear that Gov. Greg Abbott may decide the issue - if he signs into law a just-passed bill intended to affirm its earlier decision. Either way, the complicated case could have significant impact on future cases - and is being watched nationally as one of the first such decisions on so-called "junk science" writs. At issue is whether Neal Robbins, serving a life sentence for killing his girlfriend's 17-month-old daughter, Tristen Skye Rivet, should get a new trial because medical examiner Patricia Moore changed her autopsy decision from homicide to undetermined eight years after Robbins was sent to prison in 1999. Texas' initial law allowing new trials in cases where junk science was confirmed - the first in the nation, passed in 2013 - did not cover instances where witnesses later recanted their testimony, as in Robbins' case. "This is an unreliable verdict that cannot stand the test of time," said Brian Wice, a Houston attorney representing Robbins. "You can debate this until Lindsay Lohan wins an Academy Award, but his trial was fundamentally unfair because of the change in what the autopsy said." Even so, Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney Bill Delmore said what should be a clear case has been complicated by the fact that the Legislature approved a new law late last month - House Bill 3724 is awaiting Abbott's signature or veto - that he said will decide the case for the court. "It will invalidate my motion," he told the judges. "It puts me in a pretty difficult spot.".........Wice urged the court to err on the side of justice, in a case where testimony has turned out to be misleading. "The search for the truth is not always easy," he told the judges. Though no date has been set for a decision from the court, Abbott has until June 20 to sign into law or veto the new law that could affect the case."
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Murder-case-could-set-precedent-in-so-called-6305565.php
Read Scott Henson's "Grits for Breakfast" observations: "The vote on the Court of Criminal Appeals interpreting Texas' junk science writ looks to be ridiculously close - probably another 5-4 outcome - judging from oral arguments this morning. But no one, I think, could reasonably guess after today's arguments which way it might go.'
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.ca/2015/06/difficult-to-read-tea-leaves-from-oral.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
