Texas To Execute Jeffrey Wood Even Though He Didn't Kill Anyone

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Can I go to dinner or are we waiting ? We are having sparkly goeduck.

Zipp but I bet we get at least a billable hour or two

[Rob L 3,811]

Zipp but I bet we get at least a billable hour or two

meters running

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

Texas Halts Execution Of Non-Triggerman Over Questions Of ‘Dr. Death’ Testimony

[Jacque67 7,328]

Texas Halts Execution Of Non-Triggerman Over Questions Of Dr. Death Testimony

Wow, Killz. Over and beyond!!

[Rob L 3,811]

Wow, Killz. Over and beyond!!

I hope she understands we were kidding about paying in real coin.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Hey! It's still evening here. I was stuck in the office until 7, then had a glamorous evening of chores and reading.

So I read up a little on the Texas Law of Parties. Wow! It's a mashup of accomplice theory and conspiracy liability and a dash of felony murder, and it gives a hell of a lot of discretion to the court in determining whether a death sentence should be imposed. It's helpful here to go over some of these concepts to understand the intersections, and why this law is kinda hinky in my opinion. It goes without saying that what's said below is (1) an expression of the common law (mostly) rather than black letter state law -- each state will have its own version of the common law in statutory form, but generally the underlying principles are rooted in the common law; and (2) I meant it when I said that my opinions will hold up in no court of law or even the court of VJ Opinion.

With all that being said, let's look first at conspiracy. Conspiracy is the agreement between or more persons to work together towards an criminal goal. Modernly, there is a further requirement that there must be some act done in furtherance of the criminal goal -- that is to say just talking about robbing a bank but never doing anything about it is not going to be sufficient to support a charge of conspiracy. Under the Pinkerton Rule, all members of a conspiracy are vicariously liable for the criminal acts that occur within the scope of the conspiracy, even if those acts weren't actually the criminal goal itself. Here, a criminal act will be within the scope of the conspiracy if it is foreseeable that it could occur during the commission of the criminal goal or in furtherance thereof. So, it's foreseeable when there is a conspiracy to commit armed robbery, that someone could get killed because there are guns involved and hey, people with guns can kill people. If the members of the conspiracy know that the member actually committing the robbery itself has a gun, they are knowingly taking a risk that someone could get killed. I think most of us can get behind this.

Accomplice theory is a way of roping in those who are not necessarily in agreement to work towards a criminal goal, but act in some way to help it along. An accomplice is one who aids, abets, assists or encourages another in the commission of a criminal act. At common law, accomplices were sorted into principals and accessories before and after the fact, but modernly this has all merged and this is just sort of mildly interesting on an historical level. Anywho, an accomplice may be charged with the crime that he aided, assisted, etc. if the crime is actually completed. So if a person comes across one guy beating the stuffing out of some guy wearing an "I'm With Her - Vote Hillary" t-shirt, and gives help in some way towards that beating like holding the victim down, that interloper can be charged with the same assault and battery as the guy actually doing the beating, even though there never was any agreement between the two jerks. But if the interloper just watches and thinks -- but does not say -- "That dude getting the beating deserves it for being a Hillary supporter," he's doing nothing to help. Generally, barring some sort of special relationship, we have no duty to assist others in peril, so thinking bad thoughts about a Hillary supporter isn't going to support accomplice liability in this situation. Again, I think most people can agree on this.

Then we have the felony murder rule, which states that malice aforethought to support a charge of murder will be established where a killing occurs during the commission of certain enumerated crimes (arson, burglary, robbery and rape -- though states have expanded this list). The rationale behind this is that some crimes are very likely to result in serious bodily harm that death is always going to be foreseeable, so in effect the defendant's actions show some sort of expression of something like an acceptance of the risk that the conduct will result in homicide, even there is no intent to kill. This can lead to some weird results (and it's getting late here and my thoughts on the felony murder rule would take me far more time to type than I want to put in at now after midnight), but many people still support the felony murder rule. While the Supreme Court has held that a death sentence for a defendant convicted under the felony murder rule is constitutional if the defendant was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life [Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987)], a death sentence is unconstitutional (violation of 8th and 14th Amendments) if the defendant "aided and abetted a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed." [Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) -- sorry, too tired to look up the jump cite] I think the Tison decision is meh, personally, but that is for another time!

When we look at the Law of Parties, there's something similar to conspiracy going on. And there's definitely some accomplice theory and something like FMR. Here's the statute:

Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER.

(a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:
(1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense;
(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or
(3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense.

(b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.

When you read it, it's not a bad law. It sums up a lot of what I've said above, but the conspiracy subsection (7.02(b)) is a lot broader in scope than the common law. If you "should have anticipated" the crime -- not just that the crime was foreseeable in general in the circumstances -- then tough tatas, buddy.

More weirdness comes in with sentencing. A person convicted under the Law of Parties may be sentenced to death even if he has no intent for a killing to take place, acts with no reckless indifference to human life, has no intent that lethal force be used, and isn't a major participant (basically the Enmund and Tison categories are out the window). All that is necessary is that -- in the eyes of the jury -- the defendant should have anticipated given what he knew in the circumstances that death might occur. This is really a negligence standard! I mean... wow. I am firmly of the opinion that negligence should never result in severe punishments like life without the possibility of parole or death. Imagine a jury of your peers (jury selection would make you weep for humanity -- I've done it once and dread the next time) deciding that it's late on Friday, happy hour's about to start and hey, you really should have known that your crazy buddy Sparky was going to be packing heat when you said you'd give him a lift to do an inside job pilfering some widescreen TVs from the warehouse he works at.

Yeah.

So when it comes down to it... hell, I've been writing for an hour and I forgot my point. I think subsection 7.02(b) is overbroad and gives far too much discretion where death sentences are a real risk.

Your bill: no charge.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Killary

[Jacque67 7,328]

Cheers. Very informative.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Wow that gal deserves a free platinum plan.

You went a above and beyond.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Wow that gal deserves a free platinum plan.

You went a above and beyond.

So after reading the "gal's " argument are you still convinced Wood is guilty of negligence?

[OriZ 3,157]

So after reading the "gal's " argument are you still convinced Wood is guilty of negligence?

It's not even that. Lets assume he played a role in it, which he did. Is it enough to execute someone? Well I'm not a proponent of capital punishment so even if he had pulled the trigger my answer would still be no(not to confuse that view with dangerous people{criminals, terrorists} who are not already apprehended or not already in custody and it might be impossible to get to them in a timely manner, you have to stop them any way you can, but those that already are - no state should have the right to decide to kill). But he didn't, and on top of that, he's significantly intellectually challenged. I don't believe he should even be in prison. That DOESN'T mean he should be out on the streets if his behaviour could pose a threat. It does mean that maybe some other institution or some help would be a much better route. Killing those people instead is kind of pure Aryan like.

[Rob L 3,811]

Hey! It's still evening here. I was stuck in the office until 7, then had a glamorous evening of chores and reading.

So I read up a little on the Texas Law of Parties. Wow! It's a mashup of accomplice theory and conspiracy liability and a dash of felony murder, and it gives a hell of a lot of discretion to the court in determining whether a death sentence should be imposed. It's helpful here to go over some of these concepts to understand the intersections, and why this law is kinda hinky in my opinion. It goes without saying that what's said below is (1) an expression of the common law (mostly) rather than black letter state law -- each state will have its own version of the common law in statutory form, but generally the underlying principles are rooted in the common law; and (2) I meant it when I said that my opinions will hold up in no court of law or even the court of VJ Opinion.

With all that being said, let's look first at conspiracy. Conspiracy is the agreement between or more persons to work together towards an criminal goal. Modernly, there is a further requirement that there must be some act done in furtherance of the criminal goal -- that is to say just talking about robbing a bank but never doing anything about it is not going to be sufficient to support a charge of conspiracy. Under the Pinkerton Rule, all members of a conspiracy are vicariously liable for the criminal acts that occur within the scope of the conspiracy, even if those acts weren't actually the criminal goal itself. Here, a criminal act will be within the scope of the conspiracy if it is foreseeable that it could occur during the commission of the criminal goal or in furtherance thereof. So, it's foreseeable when there is a conspiracy to commit armed robbery, that someone could get killed because there are guns involved and hey, people with guns can kill people. If the members of the conspiracy know that the member actually committing the robbery itself has a gun, they are knowingly taking a risk that someone could get killed. I think most of us can get behind this.

Accomplice theory is a way of roping in those who are not necessarily in agreement to work towards a criminal goal, but act in some way to help it along. An accomplice is one who aids, abets, assists or encourages another in the commission of a criminal act. At common law, accomplices were sorted into principals and accessories before and after the fact, but modernly this has all merged and this is just sort of mildly interesting on an historical level. Anywho, an accomplice may be charged with the crime that he aided, assisted, etc. if the crime is actually completed. So if a person comes across one guy beating the stuffing out of some guy wearing an "I'm With Her - Vote Hillary" t-shirt, and gives help in some way towards that beating like holding the victim down, that interloper can be charged with the same assault and battery as the guy actually doing the beating, even though there never was any agreement between the two jerks. But if the interloper just watches and thinks -- but does not say -- "That dude getting the beating deserves it for being a Hillary supporter," he's doing nothing to help. Generally, barring some sort of special relationship, we have no duty to assist others in peril, so thinking bad thoughts about a Hillary supporter isn't going to support accomplice liability in this situation. Again, I think most people can agree on this.

Then we have the felony murder rule, which states that malice aforethought to support a charge of murder will be established where a killing occurs during the commission of certain enumerated crimes (arson, burglary, robbery and rape -- though states have expanded this list). The rationale behind this is that some crimes are very likely to result in serious bodily harm that death is always going to be foreseeable, so in effect the defendant's actions show some sort of expression of something like an acceptance of the risk that the conduct will result in homicide, even there is no intent to kill. This can lead to some weird results (and it's getting late here and my thoughts on the felony murder rule would take me far more time to type than I want to put in at now after midnight), but many people still support the felony murder rule. While the Supreme Court has held that a death sentence for a defendant convicted under the felony murder rule is constitutional if the defendant was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life [Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987)], a death sentence is unconstitutional (violation of 8th and 14th Amendments) if the defendant "aided and abetted a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed." [Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) -- sorry, too tired to look up the jump cite] I think the Tison decision is meh, personally, but that is for another time!

When we look at the Law of Parties, there's something similar to conspiracy going on. And there's definitely some accomplice theory and something like FMR. Here's the statute:

When you read it, it's not a bad law. It sums up a lot of what I've said above, but the conspiracy subsection (7.02(b)) is a lot broader in scope than the common law. If you "should have anticipated" the crime -- not just that the crime was foreseeable in general in the circumstances -- then tough tatas, buddy.

More weirdness comes in with sentencing. A person convicted under the Law of Parties may be sentenced to death even if he has no intent for a killing to take place, acts with no reckless indifference to human life, has no intent that lethal force be used, and isn't a major participant (basically the Enmund and Tison categories are out the window). All that is necessary is that -- in the eyes of the jury -- the defendant should have anticipated given what he knew in the circumstances that death might occur. This is really a negligence standard! I mean... wow. I am firmly of the opinion that negligence should never result in severe punishments like life without the possibility of parole or death. Imagine a jury of your peers (jury selection would make you weep for humanity -- I've done it once and dread the next time) deciding that it's late on Friday, happy hour's about to start and hey, you really should have known that your crazy buddy Sparky was going to be packing heat when you said you'd give him a lift to do an inside job pilfering some widescreen TVs from the warehouse he works at.

Yeah.

So when it comes down to it... hell, I've been writing for an hour and I forgot my point. I think subsection 7.02(b) is overbroad and gives far too much discretion where death sentences are a real risk.

Your bill: no charge.

sexy!

[TBoneTX 42,990]

Wow that gal deserves a free platinum plan.

You went a above and beyond.

Si, man.

Maven, this is fascinating stuff. Upon your barment (the converse of disbarment), you will surely not be one among the 99% of all lawyers who give the rest a bad name.

The free double-platinum plan might be arranged for you if you can legitimately use "tortfeasor" in the course of your future dissertations here.