tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3258333792975452743.comments2013-08-24T18:03:58.119-05:00Furtive MovementsAndrew Goldenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07775341271176185748noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3258333792975452743.post-35079390853665278922009-05-14T04:43:00.000-05:002009-05-14T04:43:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.謝明博馬陰人放購ˇ屁ㄉ人不董識貨ㄉ人精打細算ㄉ人霖宏百里緒恩駛溟含凾信攔醬油邱科信彰柏宏與簽纏t06單耳耽溺娟謝政道QKPb戲曲學院部大汐布袋戲model mode台北不婚獨子女 臺獨https://www.blogger.com/profile/02346328150693740298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3258333792975452743.post-48111461364745976672009-03-23T11:15:00.000-05:002009-03-23T11:15:00.000-05:00I'm not sure if that's true or not; it seems odd t...I'm not sure if that's true or not; it seems odd to think that they'd accept the case on review only to say that they can't accept the case because they don't have jurisdiction. All that being said, however, they <I>did</I> make a decision on the case, and while I know that appellate courts can't technically consider new facts, they could have ended up doing so by saying (in a much more eloquent format than the paraphrasing I am about to do):<BR/><BR/>"The law of insanity here is X. We understand that the jury was presented with two sides, and chose to rule him as sane. However, subsequent events have even further illustrated why they unfortunately made the wrong decision. We believe in the power of the jury system, but we believe even more in the justice of the legal system, and while the acts Mr. Thomas committed were gruesome and tragic, it seems clear to us that justice has not been done. As such, we must reverse and remand this for a new trial in which this subsequent evidence must be presented."<BR/><BR/>You don't have to let him walk free by any means, but neither must you sentence a truly insane man to die, not when the system has said that insanity negates intent.Andrew Goldenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07775341271176185748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3258333792975452743.post-76379538281165482422009-03-23T10:32:00.000-05:002009-03-23T10:32:00.000-05:00Andrew: The Texas Supreme Court didn't because it ...Andrew: The Texas Supreme Court didn't because it couldn't. The Supreme Court does not have cr9iminal jurisdiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com