HARMFUL ERROR Criminal appeals court eroding justice for all Texans.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the state’s highest authority on criminal justice matters. In recent years, a majority of the court’s jurists have demonstrated an affectionate tolerance of incompetent judging and lawyering, a contempt for basic fairness, and what borders on fear and resentment of justice itself.In an opinion earlier this month, the court ruled that a defendant facing execution has no right to have a competent lawyer handle his appeal. In this case, an inexperienced and ailing lawyer appointed by the trial court failed to mention evidence, not available at the time of trial, of the defendant’s innocence. The lawyer admitted he did not understand the procedures for filing a habeas corpus motion.

The court’s 6-3 ruling, concluding that the right to appeal and the right to counsel do not require a competent appeal mounted by an effective counsel, said the need for certain and immediate punishment was paramount, apparently outweighing concerns for fairness and the protection of innocence.In a dissenting opinion, one judge correctly observed, "Competent counsel ought to mean more than a human being with a law license and a pulse".

This latest ruling follows a long series of opinions in which the Court of Criminal Appeals has tolerated sleeping lawyers, incompetent lawyers, absent lawyers and impaired lawyers at the trial level. The court rarely finds a rule or regulation that the lower courts cannot ignore or forget to apply with impunity, even if it prevents the defendant from getting a fair trial. But when defendants appeal, they must be held to the better of the law and denied relief.

As one past candidate for the Court of Criminal Appeals asked "How can the court say a procedural error in the trial was harmless? The defendant got the death penalty".

The presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that it it is the duty of the governor and the State Board of Pardons and Paroles to free innocent people from prison or keep them from being wrongly executed. The chief judge’s outrageous implication is that the court have little or no duty to see that justice is done, except when justice requires punishment.

The high court’s shockingly unfair and unjust rulings have brought Texas jurisprudence into ill repute. On several occasions, federal court peopled with extremely conservative jurists have had to reverse the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in order to avert miscarriages of justice.

In the March 12 party primaries and in the Nov. 5 general election, Texans have a chance to choose three judges for the Court of Criminal Appeals, which to a large degree shapes and determines the quality of justice in this state.

As they consider candidates for this high and important court – Texas’ supreme court for criminal cases – voters should ask themselves which candidate would act to uphold the right to a fair trial, perhaps sparing an innocent life or restoring liberty to an innocent person wrongly convicted. Voters, particularly those who champion law and order, should be attracted to the candidates who should do so.