Posted on 09/12/2007 4:06:08 PM PDT by decimon
HOUSTON — A man condemned for killing and beheading his common-law wife's three children had his conviction overturned Wednesday by a divided Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
In a 5-4 ruling, the state's highest criminal appeals court said John Allen Rubio's conviction and death sentence four years ago were improper because statements from his common-law wife, Angela Camacho, erroneously were allowed into evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
WTF?
Now, who says Texas is “conservative”? It’s a canard.
Head up, Heads off...whats the difference?
To cut off your children's head you pretty much have to be psychotic.
So, lets return the favor
Not allowing a wife to testify for or against her husband dates back to the Middle Ages, when wives were the property of their husbands.
Not the right kind of conservative...
So does this mean that these buffoons on this so-called “court” will be bringing these three children back to life? What about THEIR “Constitutional Rights!?!” To those of us with too much common sense, it appears that THEIR “Constitutional Rights” have been violated TWICE!!!!!!
“Judges” are pigs and their “courts” suck.
Let me understand this..they admitted to cutting off the heads of 3 children & now they are free? No metal hospital? Walking free?
I hope both of these scummers get their just rewards.
If the children don’t get justice here, don’t worry.
God will take care of it.
Meantime, I’m disgusted with a legal system that is so wrapped up in technicalities that it can no longer determine right or wrong.
Anyone think the prosecution blew it in allowing the wife’s testimony in? Not too swift, IMO.
clickIn the Rubio case, three statements Camacho made about the slayings — two in writing and one on a videotape — were offered into testimony by a police officer at Rubio's trial. The trial judge, over objections from Rubio's lawyers, allowed the testimony.
"Given Camacho's unique position as both accomplice to the crime and direct witness to (Rubio's) motivations, her specific, detailed testimony obviously had great significance," the court said.
The judges in the majority also noted Camacho herself was facing indictment for capital murder when she talked with police.
"Obviously, then, she could have been under some pressure to modify her story, given her own participation in the murders," the court said. "That is precisely the type of issue (Rubio) was not able to address on cross-examination.
"It is difficult to see how cross-examining the interrogating officers, who can only speculate as to Camacho's motives and influences to testify, would have anywhere near the same effect as cross-examining Camacho herself."
A day after Rubio was convicted for the March 2003 slayings, the same Cameron County jury decided he should be put to death.
Camacho avoided a possible death sentence by taking a plea agreement two years ago that sent her to prison with three life terms.
Rubio, 27, had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. He admitted to suffocating, stabbing and decapitating Julissa Quezada, 3; John Esthefan Rubio, 1; and Mary Jane Rubio, 2 months. The children were found were dead at the family's squalid apartment after Rubio's brother called police. The two girls had been stuffed into a plastic garbage bag. The boy was on a bed.
Rubio had told a judge he wanted to be executed but since then has pursued appeals. Lawyers raised 12 points of error from his trial. By overturning the conviction on the first point, judges did not rule on the other 11 and sent the case back to the trial court.
Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos, who was not in office at the time of the trial, said in a statement he was disappointed with the ruling and planned to retry Rubio and again seek a death sentence.
"There is sufficient evidence to uphold a conviction on a new trial," the prosecutor said.
The appeals court in Austin said while the admission of Camacho's statements did not automatically merit reversal, "the only real issue in contention at the guilt-innocence phase was (Rubio's) state of mind." The court said the primary relevant evidence came in statements from Rubio and Camacho.
"The crucial evidence to rebut (Rubio's) contention that he was not guilty by reason of insanity came almost exclusively from one source: Camacho's statements," the court noted. "We can say that her statements likely contributed to the jury's verdict of guilt, such that the error in admitting her statements at trial clearly prejudiced (Rubio's) case."
Rubio's trial lawyers said the violence and senselessness of the murders meant he had to be insane at the time. Rubio blamed a witchcraft-practicing mother and grandmother casting a spell for causing the children to become possessed, and his attorneys argued the story was almost too far-fetched for someone with an IQ of 76 to concoct. As a child, his IQ was measured at 92, which is in the normal range.
Psychiatrists testifying in the trial said Rubio's chronic drug use, especially his inhaling of spray paint, contributed to the murders.
Prosecutors suggested it was an overall life of depravity, including prostitution, drugs and a filthy apartment, that led to a decision to kill the children.
In a dissent written by Sharon Keller, the appeals court's presiding judge, and joined by two other judges, Keller said while admitting Camacho's statements into evidence was an error, it was harmless because the jury decided Rubio was not legally insane.
"Mental illness can indeed excuse criminal conduct, but only for a narrow range of offenders," she wrote. "Given the evidence in this case, it seems clear to me that John Rubio is not within that range."
A fourth judge, Lawrence Meyers, dissented from the majority ruling but did not join in Keller's opinion.
God helps us all and preserve us from these idiotic judges. If he did it, execute him. Punish the lawyers and others for a technicality error...but DO NOT let an abject murderer go over it.
God help us all and preserve us from these idiotic judges. If he did it, execute him. Punish the lawyers and others for a technicality error...but DO NOT let an abject murderer go over it.
Let me understand this..they admitted to cutting off the heads of 3 children & now they are free? No metal hospital? Walking free?
Don’t woory, We’ll get him.
>Spousal privilege is a protection of individual liberty against the overwhelming power of the government. Your theory is wrong, because husbands cannot be forced to protect their wives either.
So it is not about property, regardless of what the practice was in the Middle Ages.
Freudian slip there?
Sounds good to me for these walking fecal matter
Nah..
no one is safe from the court system, in ANY state, including "hang 'em high" Texas.
And that goes double for an appeals court.
Sorry I was so mad I forgot spell check... I do hope that these monsters are not free and are not danger to anyone.
Something I'd like to know is if the appeals court reversed the conviction strictly on the fact of the erroneous Camacho testimony or if it judged the effect of that testimony on the decision to convict.
Oh well, if there will be a retrial then I guess this guy will not see daylight in the interim. I don't always guess correctly.
I think the issue is hear-say, not spousal immunity. As a conservative, I would be upset if the court had upheld the convict, based on the facts in the story. The right to confront one’s accusers is one of our bedrock constituitional protections.
“..a legal system that is so wrapped up in technicalities..”
Our laws are written by lawyers so as to benefit lawyers.
They are probably illegals and can get away with killing, etc here in the United States.
Deport them to the middle east.
Mexas Ping!
If you want on, or off this S. Texas/Mexico ping list, please FReepMail me.
Another fundraiser?
Heads on Pikes !!!
Is this the court of appeals in Beaumont, Texas?
Our obedience to laws is conditional on the impled contract between the government and the people: we forego our right to avenge ourselves upon those who have wronged us, and the government agrees to seek vengeance in our stead.
When the government breaks its part of the bargain, the contract is void...
When the government breaks its part of the bargain, the contract is void...
...provided that those who act to avenge themselves subsequently submit themselves and their actions to the judgment of a duly constituted court of law. To seek private justice and then attempt to conceal the act is a crime in itself.
Don't know.
Like we "got" Andrea Yates?
A wife may not be forced to testify against her husband, but it is not against the law for one to do it voluntarily.
She refused to directly testify, but her confessions were a seperate issue as they were offered freely by her.
The Supreme Court of Texas just made a horrible decision... Perhaps they’ll feel better if its their kids who wind up victims.
Unfathonable that this decision was handed down, let alone that it got 5 votes for it.
Yeah, let’s compare execution stats for Texas and all you other jurisdictions. The occasional slip notwithstanding, justice is served in Texas.
Nope, the Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin, which is Texas’ highest appellate court for criminal matters.
Couldn't agree more..the Texas legislators, juries, and prosecutors do it right but, judges will be judges, even in Texas.
Um, didn’t the prosecution have enough other evidence to uphold the conviction? Please don’t tell me that this man’s conviction hinged only upon the illegal testimony of his common law wife. This is just crazy. Time to remove from the bench some judges IMHO.
Ah, whatever. It’s 2007. We live in an anarchy and people need to get used to it.
If you want justice, you have to get it for yourself.
Anybody who depends on cops, courts, lawyers and judges for justice is a fool.
I hate to agree with you, as I am a judge in Texas, but indeed, being appointed or elected a judge doesn’t automatically bring the mantle of reason...
In a case as this, is there no other remediation that overturning a conviction?
JAG is a much higher standard and quality of person than the group I referenced.
Good on ya.
Wish I could tell you - I haven’t read the opinion yet, but assume they found it went to one of his fundamental rights (apparently the right to cross-examine witnesses), and that’s often a valid basis for reversing a conviction. Not always - and this particular Court of Criminal Appeals isn’t know for its tender heart.
Thanks - proudly serving for 22 years this December, active and reserve.
Colonel, USAFR
I’d think he’d just be arrested at the gate of the prison for same charges to be reinstated and he’ll just get a new trial won’t he ?
On the other hand were the victims members of my close circle of family or friends I’d rather have him out on the street where I could meet and greet him properly......
This guy may walk but not far IMHO........
Thanks.
If the details of the case are correct, I’d have to agree with the majority of the Appeals Court. The common-law wife was also being held as an accomplice. She provided written and videotaped testimony for officers but refused to testify at trial. The law says a defendant should be able to face and question their accusers and the court denied the defendant this right.
That the wife’s testimony was allowed but the defense was not allowed to cross-examine her is what the appeal is about and it seems to me that’s a valid reason for overturning the verdict. The defense was not able to exercise a fundamental right of a fair trial.
He’ll be retried without that testimony (or they’ll make her take the stand this time) and probably be convicted a second time.
You hate to overturn a conviction on such a heinous crime but I think it is the correct call.
The weight of the trial judge's error was too great. The introduction of written and taped statements from a witness, w/o that witness being made available for cross is not allowed. The effect of that testimony on the jury couldn't be called insignificant by the appeals court. Another trial must be held to have a jury make the determination.
This is be good news. A) They’re not letting him go, they’re just making sure his conviction is valid, and B) he’s guilty, but not everyone accused is and if it were you if I’m sure you’d want a fair trial.
Try him in an honest and fair trial, convict him, execute him.
You're probably right. But there should be a retrial or this thing is...in a cocked hat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.