Delaying the truth in Charles Hood case harms pro-death penalty cause

If you don’t think judges cover up for one another’s misdeeds, consider the case of Charles Dean Hood, a convicted murderer who’s scheduled for execution next month despite evidence that the judge and the Collin County DA engaged in an extramarital affair during his 1990 trial. Judge Verna Sue Holland went on to serve on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, where eight of her former colleagues this summer ruled that Hood could not force her to answer for the alleged misconduct. Her ex-husband, now deceased, and a prosecutor who worked there at the time have said the pair were sleeping together.

So Hood’s lawyers pursued a novel civil suit to get to the truth, but now another Collin County judge has set the hearing for two days after Hood’s scheduled execution.

Meanwhile, Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey notes that “the two people who have absolute knowledge of the truth remain silent,” writing that:

Three years ago Judge Holland told reporter Alan Berlow, whose piece on the alleged affair appeared on Salon.com, that it would be “unethical to comment” on a pending case.

That’s absurd.

Houston lawyer Lillian Hardwick, who co-authored the Handbook of Texas Lawer and Judicial Ethics, says she can think of no ethical reason Holland can’t come clean.

“In fact, the Texas Code suggests just the opposite, as applied to what she did on the bench and off the bench, while a judge,” she said.

This is an instance where politicized pandering over the death penalty has prevented an honest rendering of the case. Those who most ardently support the death penalty seem to think that if Hood is executed, they “win,” so they want it to happen without delay.

That’s a foolish stance that’s doomed to backfire. Holland’s friends on the bench can’t protect her indefinitely from having these misconduct allegations publicly aired. As I wrote in the comments on Friday, “this game of chicken is bigger than Charles Hood. Now we know the affair is still likely to be exposed even if it happens posthumously on behalf of Hood’s estate.

“So the question becomes: Do Holland and [former DA Tom O'Connell] want to wait until the deed is done to reveal a conflict which would have easily granted Charles Hood a mistrial if true? My guess is they’d be disbarred over it. If the affair occurred, and if it didn’t one can’t help but believe they’d deny it, the pair will be doubly disgraced, both as adulterers and unethical barristers. Even more importantly in the big picture, they’ll have done more to harm the cause of pro-death penalty advocates than any abolitionist ever could.

“One other aside: A lot of people, not just Charles Hood, got convicted in her court during the six-year period the DA was allegedly bedding the judge. These allegations open up many, many cans of worms.”

Published by: admin on September 2nd, 2008 | Filed under DUI



Leave a Comment

rss feed