BACKGROUND: From a previous post on this Blog: (Link below); "Statements Judge Cunningham made before, during, and after Applicant’s trial proceedings, when considered either independently or in the context of thesurrounding circumstances, overwhelmingly show actual bias. That evidence consisted of the following: (a) Judge Cunningham’s lifelong animus towards Jews and people of color, and the actions he took based on that animus; (b) Judge Cunningham’s repeated references to Applicant be a Jew and to his codefendants’ ethnicity; (c) Judge Cunningham’s pretrial statement that he would “get” Applicant and his codefendants the death penalty; (d) Judge Cunningham’s post-trial statements that he was appointed to “insure” convictions and death sentences for the Texas 7, and; (e) Judge Cunningham’s efforts to persuade voters that he should get credit for and be rewarded for those convictions and death sentences. Although the percipient witness testimony on any one of these points would have been sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Applicant was denied a fair trial, Applicant also presented persuasive expert testimony. Applicant’s experts showed the following: (a) Viewed in the context of his community, Judge Cunningham’s anti-Semitic feelings were so strong that he expressed bigotry towards even the most respected Jews in Dallas society. This showed, contrary to the State’s arguments, that Judge Cunningham’s use of anti-Semitic slurs when speaking about Applicant was part of a pattern of demeaning others based on who they were, not what they did. (b) Judge Cunningham’s anti-Semitism was not merely a personal animus, but part of a worldview rooted in a theology he embraced early in life and a political agenda akin to the racist agenda of the Ku Klux Klan. (c) Judge Cunningham’s explicit biases against Jews, Blacks, and Latinos reflected his extreme implicit biases. Although a judge may be able to overcome his implicit biases with effort, Judge Cunningham’s statements about Jews, Latinos, and Blacks showed he lacked both the desire and ability to curb his biases when he was on the bench."
https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/7554944989433398569
————————————————--
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Randy Halprin had a defence. As previously posted on this Blog: "In the June 2003 trial, based on the circumstances around the police officer’s death “and that no mitigating circumstances warranted that a sentence of life imprisonment be imposed rather than the death sentence, Judge Cunningham sentenced applicant to death,” detailed Halprin’s counsel. However, Halprin claimed “members of the group other than Mr. Halprin shot and killed police officer Aubrey Hawkins.”
---------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Today, the Court of Criminal Appeals took a step towards broader trust in the criminal law by throwing out a hopelessly tainted death judgment handed down by a bigoted and biased judge," Tivon Schardl, one of Halprin's attorneys, said in a statement. "It also reminded Texans that religious bigotry has no place in our courts."
—————————————————————————
PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "The order for a new trial came after state District Judge Lela Mays in Dallas said in a December 2022 ruling that Cunningham did not or could not curb the influence of his antisemitic bias in his judicial decision-making during the trial. Mays wrote that Cunningham used racist, homophobic and antisemitic slurs to refer to Halprin and the other escaped inmates."
————————————————————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The Tarrant County District Attorney's Office was appointed to handle legal issues related to Halprin's allegations after the Dallas County District Attorney's Office, which prosecuted the case, was disqualified. In September 2022, Tarrant County prosecutors filed court documents in which they said Halprin should get a new trial because Cunningham showed "actual bias" against him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: Appeal court orders new trial for a man on Texas' death row over judge's anti-semitic remarks, by Associated Press Reporter Juan Lozano, published on November 7, 2024.
GIST: SAN ANTONIO — A Texas appeals court ordered a new trial Wednesday for a Jewish man on death row — who was part of a gang of prisoners that fatally shot a police officer in 2000 after escaping — because of antisemitic bias by the judge who presided over his case.
Lawyers for Randy Halprin have contended that former Judge Vickers Cunningham in Dallas used racial slurs and antisemitic language to refer to him and some of his co-defendants.
Halprin, 47, was among the group of inmates known as the "Texas 7" who escaped from a South Texas prison in December 2000 and then committed numerous robberies, including the one in which they shot 29-year-old Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins 11 times, killing him.
By a vote of 6-3, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered that Halprin's conviction be overturned and that he be given a new trial after concluding that Cunningham was biased against him at the time of his trial because he is Jewish.
The appeals court found that evidence showed that during his life, Cunningham repeated unsupported antisemitic narratives. When Cunningham became a judge, he continued to use derogatory language about Jewish people outside the courtroom "with 'great hatred, (and) disgust' and increasing intensity as the years passed," the court said.
It also said that during Halprin's trial, Cunningham made offensive antisemitic remarks outside the courtroom about Halprin in particular and Jews in general.
"The uncontradicted evidence supports a finding that Cunningham formed an opinion about Halprin that derived from an extrajudicial factor - Cunningham's poisonous antisemitism," the appeals court wrote in its ruling.
The court previously halted Halprin's execution in 2019.
"Today, the Court of Criminal Appeals took a step towards broader trust in the criminal law by throwing out a hopelessly tainted death judgment handed down by a bigoted and biased judge," Tivon Schardl, one of Halprin's attorneys, said in a statement. "It also reminded Texans that religious bigotry has no place in our courts."
The order for a new trial came after state District Judge Lela Mays in Dallas said in a December 2022 ruling that Cunningham did not or could not curb the influence of his antisemitic bias in his judicial decision-making during the trial.
Mays wrote that Cunningham used racist, homophobic and antisemitic slurs to refer to Halprin and the other escaped inmates.
Cunningham stepped down from the bench in 2005 and is now an attorney in private practice in Dallas. His office said Wednesday that he would not be commenting on Halprin's case.
Cunningham previously denied allegations of bigotry after telling The Dallas Morning News in 2018 that he has a living trust that rewards his children for marrying straight, white Christians. He had opposed interracial marriages but later told the newspaper that his views had evolved.
The Tarrant County District Attorney's Office was appointed to handle legal issues related to Halprin's allegations after the Dallas County District Attorney's Office, which prosecuted the case, was disqualified.
In September 2022, Tarrant County prosecutors filed court documents in which they said Halprin should get a new trial because Cunningham showed "actual bias" against him.
Of the seven inmates who escaped, one killed himself before the group was arrested. Four have been executed. Another, Patrick Murphy, awaits execution.
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/11/06/texas-7-death-row-randy-halprin-new-trial/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
- SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————-
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
