High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
CAUSENO.1170853
MOTIONTOHOLD
THAT
TEX.
CODECRIM.PROC.
ART.37.01
ISUNCONSTITUTIONAL
TO
THE
HONORABLE
JUDGE
OF
SAID
COURT:
177TH
JUDICIALDISTRICTINTHEDISTRICTCOURT
OF
F
!.fall
D
Dlstricf
Cfes:i.
n
MAY
14
2009
Tim.:
HARJUSCOUNTY,TEXAS
§§§
§
§
THE
STATE
OF
TEXAS
JOHN
E.
GREEN
Vs.
By
HIJrrlS
COunty
COMES
NOW,
John
E.
Green,theAccused,byandthroughhisattorneys
--
pursuanttothe5
th
,
6
th
,
8
th
and
14
th
AmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticle
I,
sections
3,10,13,15
&
19
of
theTexasConstitutionand
TEX.CODE.CRIM.PROC.
art.2.03and38.03(Vernon)andmakesthishismotiontoholdthat
TEX.
CODE
CRIM.PROC.
art.37.071isunconstitutionalandasgroundsthereforewouldshowtheCourtasfollows:
I.
TheDefendanthasbeenindictedbythecountygrand
jury
forcapitalmurder.2.TheStateisseekingthedeathpenalty.TheEighthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionrequiresagreaterdegree
of
accuracyandfact-findingthanwouldbetrueinanoncapitalcase.
Gilmore
v.
Taylor,_508
U.S.333,113
S.
Ct.2112,124
L.
Ed.2d306(1993)and
Woodson
v.
NorthCarolina,
428U.S.280,305(1976).
3.
TheEighthAmendment'sprohibition
of
"cruelandunusualpunishment"mustbeinterpretedinlight
of
"evolvingstandards
of
decency."
Atkins
v.
Virginia,
122
S.
Ct.2242(2002).
It
issettledlawthatthe5
th
Amendment'sbroadguarantee
of
"dueprocess"mustbeinterpretedinlight
of
evolvingstandards
of
fairnessandorderedliberty.
See,
e.g.
PlannedParenthood
v.
Casey,
505U.S.833,846-851(1992);
Rochin
v.
California,
342U.S.165,171-172
(I
952)(overruledonothergrounds).
4.
Morethan100inmatesfromthecountry'sdeathrowshavebeenexonerated.Thatacitizen
of
thiscountrycanbeexonerated
by
the"system"
is
notcomfortingwhenonerealizesthatit
is
thesame"system"thatdecidedthatthispersonwasnotonlyguilty
of
thechargedoffense,butdeservedtodie.Theunfairness
of
thisalarmingscenarioismagnifiedbythelack
of
protectionsthatareaffordedtodefendantsincapitaltrialsinTexasandtheextenttowhichthestatewill
go
to"win."Tacticsthatarecustomarilyusedincludetheofferingtothecourtand
jury
"predictions"bywitnesseswhoseown"scientificcommunityvirtuallyunanimouslyagreethatpsychiatrictestimonyonfuturedangerousnessis,
to
putitbluntly,unreliableandunscientific."
Flores
v.
Johnson,210
F.3d456,463(5thCir.Tex.2000).
If
protection
of
innocentpeoplefromstate-sponsoredexecutionisaprotectedliberty,and
if
suchprotectedlibertyincludestheright
of
aninnocentpersonnottobedeprived,
by
execution,
of
theopportunitytodemonstratehisinnocence,thenCongressmaynotoverridesuchlibertyabsentafarmoreclearandcompellingneedthananypresentedhere.
UnitedStates
v.
Quinones,
205
F.
Supp.2d256(S.D.N.Y.2002).ThisCourtcannolongerhaveahighdegree
of
confidenceinanyverdictbecause
of
thefalliblenature
of
themannerinwhichevidencehasbeencollectedbythestate,thelength
of
timebetweenthedate
of
theoffenseandthetime
of
arrest,theintentionalmisrepresentationtothe
jury
of
theeffect
of
itsinabilitytoreachaverdictinthepunishmentphase
of
acapitaltrialandthemanyotherinequitiesthatplaguethesystem,whichinclude:
•
Failure
of
thestatetocodifyaJurorBill
of
rightsthatwouldinsure
2
••
thatajurorthatwantedtovoteforlifewouldbefreefromharassmentfrompro-deathjurors;The"deathqualification"process
of
thevenireinacapitalcaseresultsinajurythat
is
moreconservative,ismoreinclinedtoviewdeath
as
theappropriate"default"option,moreinclinedtoshifttheburdentothedefendantthatlifeistheappropriatesentenceand
is
lessreceptive
of
tomeritsphaseissuesthatareraisedbythedefense.Arulethatsaysthat
10
jurorsmustagreetoreturnaverdict
of
lifewhenthelawrequiresonlyone(1)jurorforalifevote..Thelawsaysthataninability
to
agreeonany
of
theissuesthentheresultisalifesentence,notahungjury.Jurorsarenottoldthis,infacttheyareintentionallymisled;•Thestatecontinuestosponsortestimony(andstatejudgescontinuetoallowsuchtestimony)fromsupposedprofessionalswhoprovideclinicalopinions
as
totheprobabilitythatthedefendantwillcommitcriminalacts
of
violencethatwillconstituteacontinuingthreattosociety.Thereis
no
sciencethatsupportsapsychiatrist'sabilitytomakelongtermclinicalpredictions
of
violentconductinaprisonsetting.
•
In
thisregard,judgeshavecompletelyabandonedtheirroleasgatekeepersinkeepingoutevidencethatisscientificallyunreliable;•Failure
of
thestatetobantheexecution
of
juvenileswhileatthesametimeprohibitingsomeone
of
thesameagefromconsumingalcoholorsmokingcigarettesonthebasisthattheyarenotwiseenoughtomaketheproperdecisionabouttheir
lives;
•Failure
of
thestatetobantheexecution
of
juvenileswhenthepre-frontalcortex
of
thebrain
of
ajuvenilemaybe
no
betterdevelopedthanonewhosuffersfrommentalretardation;•Failuretorequirethatprior
to
execution,therebesomefindingthatdefendant
has,
infact,beenacontinuingthreattoprisonsocietyandthatunlessexecuted
he
willcontinuetobeacontinuingthreattosocietyandthatnomitigatingcircumstanceshavearisen.Even
if
anindividualisguilty
of
aheinouscrime,thatpersonmayhavebeenredeemedand
no
longerbethe"sameperson"whenheiskilledbythestate;•Failstoadequatelyprovidedefinitionsforterms:probability,society,future,continuingthreat;
3
Add a Comment