Posted on
November 13, 2009 in
From the State’s Motion to Recuse Judge Helm from all family violence cases:
Due process requires recusal when “there is a serious risk of actual bias—based on objective and reasonable perceptions.”
and
This bias should not be allowed to interfere with the State’s due process rights in a manner that infects “the integrity of the trial process.”
Problem: The State has no right to due process.
(Prosecutors and other statists go slackjawed and glassyeyed when introduced to that principle, so I offer them a cite: Collier v. Poe, 732 S.W.2d 332, 343-44 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)).
Have you forgotten that the former HarCo DA cited “the rights of States to determine their own destiny” in his SCOTUS oral argument in Lawrence?
If states have substantive due process rights, then it follows that they have procedural due process rights. Right?
I’ll take “embarrassing moments in Harris County History” for $200, please.
It sounds as though you are saying that a judge can have a personal bias in favor of a particular criminal defendant, and the state has no right to any remedy. Is that really what you meant?
While that might be true, it’s not what I’m saying. Please try again.