From Wood v. State (Tex. Ct. App. June 18):
During the punishment phase of appellant’s trial [for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon], Sheriff David Halliburton testified that appellant had a tattoo on each eyelid. The word “Lying” was on one, and “Eyes” on the other. Appellant objected to the testimony stating that it was not relevant. The trial court overruled the objection. The State mentioned the tattoos in its closing argument on punishment, arguing that they showed appellant’s lack of respect for society.
At the punishment phase of a criminal trial, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentencing. [In Texas, sentencing, even in noncapital cases, is often done by a jury. -EV] ... The tattoos were ... used ... to show his disregard for the truth and his moral character. A person’s tattoos can reflect his character and demonstrate a motive for his crime. Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 201 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of appellant’s tattoos....
I'm not sure whether "lying eyes" does indeed show a person's "lack of respect for society" in the sense of lack of respect for moral or legal norms (as opposed to a lack of respect for its conventions of what's attractive and what's repulsive or even disgusting). "Lying eyes" could mean eyes that deceive their owner. Or it could mean eyes of a liar (which in the song were actually the part of the body that revealed the lie). Yet even if it means the latter, I doubt that people who have such tattoos are really admitting to being any more prone to lying than the average person.
Still, the threshold for admissibility of evidence is generally pretty low, especially at sentencing, where the question isn't just what a person did but what sort of person he is overall. And it's for a jury to determine just how much a person's own statements -- including his tattoos -- say about his character; so the court probably got it right as a matter of the admissibility of evidence, though if I were a juror I wouldn't give it much weight.
Sounds like a misinterpretation of the intent of the tatoos, based on a lack of familiarity with popular culture.
Especially that song.
"Life in the Fast Lane" would be a better choice.
So it actually is connected to the Eagles' song, perhaps indirectly.
But none of that is grounds for a longer sentence, or for a judge to leap to a conclusion about its meaning without researching street culture.
Should a sheriff be allowed to argue that the defendant's loud religious moralizing over the years should generate a stiffer sentence?
Should a prosecutor be able to argue that because a defendant has never attended a church a longer sentence should be imposed?
Should a District of Columbia jury be told that the person to be sentenced is a frequent donor to Republican candidates, and once organized a fundraiser for David Duke?
This sheriff is a jackass who doesn't deserve to wear a badge or a gun. The prosecutor who arranged the sheriff's testimony also is a jackass. The judge made this courtroom a three-jackass circus. And not the only one to be found in Texas, I'd wager.
Should a sheriff be allowed to argue that the defendant's loud religious moralizing over the years should generate a stiffer sentence?
Should a prosecutor be able to argue that because a defendant has never attended a church a longer sentence should be imposed?
Should a District of Columbia jury be told that the person to be sentenced is a frequent donor to Republican candidates, and once organized a fundraiser for David Duke?
This sheriff is a jackass who doesn't deserve to wear a badge or a gun. The prosecutor who arranged the sheriff's testimony also is a jackass. The judge made this courtroom a three-jackass circus. And not the only one to be found in Texas, I'd wager.
2. That's probably a free exercise problem.
3. Also a free exercise problem (or maybe an establishment clause problem?).
4. The first part would have free speech concerns. And maybe the second part too. But even constitutionally protected behavior may be used against a defendant at sentencing (like, for example, if he used racist speech or hung out with racists). Again, in context, that might be relevant.
You're making it sound as though only the State argues irrelevant nonsense during sentencing. In fairness, should defense counsel be able to argue for a lesser sentence on any of the following grounds:
Defendant is an "honor" student?
Defendant is educated?
Defendant volunteers in the community?
Defendant served his country/state/city in some military or government role having nothing to do with his crime?
Defendant loves children and animals?
Defendant attends church regularly?
All of the above are real-world examples that have been exercised repeatedly to my personal knowledge in trials ranging from traffic offenses to the sexual assault of children. I'm sure defense counsel in this case was not restrained in his irrelevant praise of the defendant, but that's not the sort of thing you tend to hear about in appellate opinions, given the State's very limited right of appeal.
May God have mercy on your soul.
Yes. I would also agree with a ruling extending this principle to the Patriots and the Yankees.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.