DICTIONARYS.COM: Extrajudicial: "Beyond, outside, against the usual procedure of justice."
----------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: (1): I have followed this case with keen interest. While this blog is focussed the role played - or misplayed - by forensic science in the criminal justice system, many cases are decided by the other side of the case - intangible factors which cannot be measured with scientific accuracy. Indeed far from it. This case is one of them: the man in robes strong on the bench with the power of determining life or death turned out to be a poisonous anti-semite - and Randy Halpern was a Jew. Read on!
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
———————————————————————————————
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: (2): 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.”
—————————————————————————
"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
————————————————--
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals halted Halprin’s execution in 2019. This past November, the court overturned the conviction and ordered that Halprin be given a new trial. New evidence supported the argument that Judge Vickers Cunningham, who presided over Halprin's original trial, held a strong bias against the defendant because he is Jewish. "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. Cunningham is now retired from the bench and works as an attorney in a private practice."
-------------------------------------------------
STORY: "‘Texas 7’ inmate Randy Halprin’s new trial likely more than a year away, by Reporters By Shaun Rabb and Tracy DeLattem published on June 4, 2025, by Fox 4.
SUB-HEADING: "It could be a year or more before the new trial of "Texas 7" inmate Randy Halprin gets underway. That’s because the Dallas County DA is challenging one of the judge's recent rulings."
-----------------------------------------------
The Brief
- It's going to be a year or more before "Texas 7" inmate Randy Halprin is retried for the death of Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins in 2000.
- Halprin was on death row, but his execution was halted in 2019 because an appeals court ruled that his original trial judge was biased.
- His new trial is facing a delay as Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot challenges one of the current judge's rulings.
- Halprin is one of only two members of the infamous "Texas 7" prison gang still alive.
----------------------------------
GIST: "DALLAS - It could be a year or more before the new trial of "Texas 7" inmate Randy Halprin gets underway.
That’s because Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot has turned to an appeals court to challenge one of Judge Lela Mays’ rulings.
Randy Halprin Retrial
What's new:
In March, Creuzot filed a motion seeking to remove one of Halprin’s court-appointed attorneys from the case.
Defense attorney Heath Harris previously worked for the DA’s office and may have been involved in some of Halprin’s post-conviction appeals.
Judge Mays ruled Harris should stay on the case.
Now, the district attorney is appealing the judge’s ruling to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, asking it to stop the proceedings while considering whether the judge’s ruling was wrong.
Dig deeper:
Dallas defense attorney Anthony Farmer is not part of the case but has been following the legal developments so he can share insight.
"It’s not unusual at all for a party to appeal a case. A lot of times as lawyers we feel the judge gets it wrong on the law and the judge errors. And we take it to the higher court to see if they agree and we hope they do. And so, it’s not uncommon for any party, DA, a side to feel that a judge has gotten the law wrong," he said.
The appeals court could either hear oral arguments or review court transcripts before making a decision. That could take a few weeks or maybe even a few months.
If the appeals court agrees with the DA that Harris should be removed, that would mean another reset with another court-appointed attorney who would have to be brought up to speed.
Death Penalty Case
What we know:
Halprin’s case is the first death penalty case for Creuzot since taking office in 2019.
And because it will be tried as a death penalty case, that too could add to the delay. Both sides and the judge will, of course, want everything to be right before a jury is seated to decide Halprin’s fate – again.
Farmer expects it will be at least a year or more before any trial takes place.
"The fact that it’s a death penalty case alone means it’s going to take a long time for both sides to prepare. The fact that it’s an older case with older witnesses, older testimony, older transcripts, etc., it’s going to take likely months if not longer for this case to be ready for trial," he said.
There are hundreds of boxes filled with evidence documents dating back to when the case began. All that paperwork is in the process of being digitized.
"It’s going to take a while to get this one right," Farmer said.
Who are Randy Halprin and the ‘Texas 7’?
The backstory:
Halprin, who is now 47, was one of seven inmates who became known as the "Texas 7."
In December of 2000, they escaped from a South Texas prison and then committed several robberies, including one at an Irving sporting goods store where they shot and killed 29-year-old Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins.
Halprin is one of only two members of the "Texas 7" still alive.
Larry Harper killed himself before the group was arrested. Four others – Joseph Garcia, Donald Newbury, Michael Rodriguez, and George Rivas – have been executed. Patrick Murphy is still awaiting execution.
Appeals court orders new trial
What we know:
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals halted Halprin’s execution in 2019.
This past November, the court overturned the conviction and ordered that Halprin be given a new trial.
New evidence supported the argument that Judge Vickers Cunningham, who presided over Halprin's original trial, held a strong bias against the defendant because he is Jewish.
"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.
Cunningham is now retired from the bench and works as an attorney in a private practice.
He has not commented on Halprin’s case.
The Source: The information in this story comes from reporter Shaun Rabb's interview with Anthony Farmer, Dallas County court records, and past news coverage.
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.fox4news.com/news/texas-7-inmate-randy-halprins-new-trial-delays
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;
————————————————————————————————---------
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;
