• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Man Sentenced To Die After ‘Expert’ Testified That Black People Are Dangerous

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Malyse

Member
Bruh.

Duane Edward Buck’s lawyers were a disaster.

After Buck was convicted of murder, his own attorneys retained a now-discredited psychologist who testified that Mr. Buck is more likely to be a danger to society in the future because he is black. This testimony then went unchallenged at a later, crucial state court proceeding even though Buck was then represented by a new lawyer. The only new claim that lawyer raised at this proceeding was “based on a non-existent provision of the penal code.”

Now, nearly two decades after his conviction, no court has considered whether the racist testimony elicited at Buck’s trial caused him to be sentenced to death. Moreover, thanks to errors committed by his previous lawyers and an array of laws and legal doctrines that often elevate the finality of convictions ahead of the need to ensure that innocents are not punished and that the death penalty is not doled out unnecessarily, it is far from clear that any court will examine the impact of this racist testimony before Mr. Buck is put to death.

The specific legal issue in Buck v. Stephens is complex enough to make a lawyer’s brain bleed. Specifically, Mr. Buck is seeking permission to seek a determination of whether “extraordinary circumstances” exist that would permit a lower court to determine whether the racist testimony elicited by his own counsel prejudiced the outcome of his sentencing proceeding. If he somehow succeeds in navigating this maze, he wins a new sentencing hearing — which could very well determine that he should be re-sentenced to death.

It’s a giant procedural mess. And it’s a mess that Texas, at one point, appeared willing to set aside. In 2000, then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn (now a U.S. Senator) determined that Dr. Walter Quijano, the psychologist who testified in Buck’s case, had a record of appearing in capital sentencing proceedings and offering racist testimony. In Buck’s case, Quijano testified that African-Americans and Hispanics are especially likely to be dangerous as they are “over represented in the Criminal Justice System.
Click to expand...

BRUH.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ith-americas-death-penalty-in-one-awful-case/

Maybe we should let Texas secede
 
G

Garlador

Member
post-40523-30-rock-shut-it-down-gif-Imgur-WnXZ.gif
Click to expand...

Every part of the justice system needs an overhaul.
 
L

Leeness

Member
Well, that testimony was given two decades ago, so the "what year is it" doesn't really apply. The year was 1995 or 1996.

But it's awful that they're still having a hard time trying to backtrack from this "testimony" and that it's a factor at all, and I hope the courts are able to take a look at his case again. :/
 
N

Nivash

Member
His own attorneys roped in an expert witness that testified against him, using racism for support to boot? IANAL, but shouldn't that be grounds to argue for ineffective assistance of counsel?
 
S

Sianos

Member
Quijano testified that African-Americans and Hispanics are especially likely to be dangerous as they are “over represented in the Criminal Justice System.
Click to expand...

the circular logic on display here

"minorities are more dangerous because of reasons!! [probably some misapplied bullshit biological determinism "theory" that doesn't account for socioeconomic inertia and discrimination skewing socioeconomic statistics mixed in with fairy tale citations for justification]" -> "we need to protect people from dangerous minorities!! [through targeted harsher sentencing for minorities and the development of laws specifically designed to snatch them off the streets]" -> "wow look at how minorities are disproportionately represented in the prison system, must mean they are more dangerous, huh"

i don't think "smug" accurately describes my reaction this - maybe try "disgusted" instead
 
L

Liu Kang Baking A Pie

Member
So many of you (the lucky ones) have no idea how much the south is a fucking disaster of destroyed lives and oppressive bigotry. Just looking into local news will give you so much like this.
 
A

A Link to the Past

Banned
What's really disheartening is that he is, without any doubt, going to die. It is not in the court's best interest to imply that any ruling, by a judge or jury, be made invalid.
 
T

Tigress

Member
Steeped in a Sea of Games said:
Well, they're talking about something that happened 20 years ago, so the 20th century and the 1990's. I'm sure not many people have known about the details of this case until just recently.
Click to expand...

Being in the 90's really doesn't make it much better/understandable. Maybe if it was in the 50's or at least the 70's.
 
C

cameron

Member
The mid 90's are way too recent to be in the "things were different back then" category in terms of scientific racism. Dr. Walter Quijano might as well have been talking about craniometry and drawing nonsense conclusions from it.

What's even more insane is that Quijano and his testimony were presented by Duane Buck’s lawyers. The doctor was a witness for the defense; not the prosecution. Like, wut?
In fairness, the real reason why Buck has previously been unable to assert his claim that he received ineffective legal assistance is a bit more complicated. For this is not simply a case of ineffective assistance of counsel, this is a case of ineffective assistance of counsel aggravated by even more ineffective assistance of counsel.

In 1999, some time after Buck received a death sentence, a new lawyer was appointed to represent the inmate in state habeas proceedings — a round of proceedings Texas state law permits for individuals seeking to challenge a death sentence. That lawyer, according to the petition now pending before the Supreme Court, “had a history of deficient representation of death-sentenced prisoners,” including one case where he “threw his client ‘under the bus’ by filing an initial state habeas application that was ‘only four pages long and merely state[d] factual and legal conclusions.’”

While Buck’s original lawyers’ sin was a sin of commission — that is, they were the ones who introduced Dr. Quijano’s racist testimony — the new lawyer’s sin was a sin of omission. The new lawyer did not challenge the original legal team’s decision to present Quijano’s testimony to the jury. That failure to assert what may be Buck’s strongest legal claim at a relatively early stage in this litigation had devastating consequences once Buck’s case reached federal court. As a federal district judge explained, Buck’s claim that his original lawyers screwed up was “procedurally defaulted” because his new lawyer failed to raise this claim soon enough. Thus Buck risks losing the ability to assert this claim forever.
Click to expand...
Texas.


Also, it seems the doctor still found work in Texas up until 2011. Article from October 2011. "Texas Ends Deal With Psychologist Over Race Testimony"
The Texas Youth Commission terminated its contract Friday with a psychologist who testified repeatedly in death penalty cases that Hispanic and black men were more likely to be dangerous in the future. The termination followed a Texas Tribune inquiry into the agency's six-year agreement with the doctor.

Despite more than a decade of court controversy in six death penalty cases, including one that was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court last month because of the testimony Walter Quijano provided, the TYC began using the psychologist in 2005.
Click to expand...
Starting as early as 1991, Quijano provided testimony during the punishment phase in six death penalty cases. He told jurors about factors that could make a person more likely to be a danger to society in the future. Quijano explained that African American and Hispanic men were more likely to be violent again.
Click to expand...
 
D

Dennis

Banned
After Buck was convicted of murder, his own attorneys retained a now-discredited psychologist who testified that Mr. Buck is more likely to be a danger to society in the future because he is black.
Click to expand...

wat
 
B

Brakke

Banned
kswiston said:
I could see a racist psychologist making that argument, but you had 12 people on the jury thinking to themselves "Hmm. I guess that makes sense!".
Click to expand...

Or it didn't make any difference when it was presented. This is one of those correlation v causation things. How can we say that the testimony was the difference between death penalty and no death penalty? Do we have evidence that speaks to that?

Anyway it's ugly enough that it's worth overturning, despite the weirdness with the defense having presented it.

And, as always: we should abolish the death penalty.
 
H

harSon

Banned
Leeness said:
Well, that testimony was given two decades ago, so the "what year is it" doesn't really apply. The year was 1995 or 1996.

But it's awful that they're still having a hard time trying to backtrack from this "testimony" and that it's a factor at all, and I hope the courts are able to take a look at his case again. :/
Click to expand...

The statement is just as valid in the mid 90s.
 
MisterFalcon

MisterFalcon

Member
If I was a lawyer and were faced with a client who was caught red handed after he shot his ex in front of her children and said he's glad he killed the bitch I'd just try to make the trial as big a clusterfuck as possible to have that eclipse the murders. And it's worked pretty well, nowhere in that article is the crime mentioned or the victims.

Buck returned to my sister's house three hours later, this time armed with two guns. He kicked the door in, and once inside the house, walked over to the couch where his sister, Phyllis, had been sleeping, and shot her point-blank in the chest. Despite her serious injuries, Phyllis survived.

Buck then shot Kenneth Butler as he was trying to flee from the house. Butler sustained a close-range gunshot wound to the chest and lay dead in the hallway of my sister's home. Three young children - Debra's 13-year-old daughter, 11-year-old son and 12-year-old niece - also were present in the house. They had to step over Butler's lifeless, bloody body to get to a phone and call 911.

Debra ran out into the street, where Buck followed after her with shotgun in hand. Debra fell to her knees and begged Buck to spare her life. The three children stood in the doorway of Debra's residence watching. Shennel, Debra's 13-year-old daughter, ran and jumped on Buck's back, clinging to his neck and shoulders and yelling for him not to shoot her mother.

Both mother and daughter cried and pleaded for Buck to stop. Shennel screamed, "Duane, don't shoot! Duane, don't shoot … don't kill my mama!" Buck gazed down at Debra, aimed his shotgun at Debra's chest and pulled the trigger. She fell back in a pool of her own blood, as the three children cried and screamed in shock. After he was arrested and in a police car, Buck smiled and joked, saying, "The bitch got what she deserved."
Click to expand...

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outloo...e-is-served-in-case-of-Duane-Buck-4663725.php
 
G

Gentleman Jack

Member
MisterFalcon said:
If I was a lawyer and were faced with a client who was caught red handed after he shot his ex in front of her children and said he's glad he killed the bitch I'd just try to make the trial as big a clusterfuck as possible to have that eclipse the murders. And it's worked pretty well, nowhere in that article is the crime mentioned or the victims.

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outloo...e-is-served-in-case-of-Duane-Buck-4663725.php
Click to expand...

The question is not one of his conviction but whether or not he was denied his civil rights during sentencing, during which some extremely racist testimony was allowed in consideration of capital punishment. This should never be okay if you even for a second believe we should serve justice equally to all.

That you would just let your client fry in violation of his constitutional rights because of your personal feelings on his conduct tells me you should never be put in a position where you are in charge of a fellow human being for any amount of time.
 
B

Brakke

Banned
Gentleman Jack said:
The question is not one of his conviction but whether or not he was denied his civil rights during sentencing, during which some extremely racist testimony was allowed in consideration of capital punishment. This should never be okay if you even for a second believe we should serve justice equally to all.

That you would just let your client fry in violation of his constitutional rights because of your personal feelings on his conduct tells me you should never be put in a position where you are in charge of a fellow human being for any amount of time.
Click to expand...

how did you conclude any of this from that post tho
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The man who owes Nintendo $14m: Gary Bowser and gaming’s most infamous piracy case
2
85
6K
SHA replied
Bill Cosby Conviction Overturned
News 2 3 4
160
14K
DeepEnigma replied
  • Locked
SCOTUS backs man who's lawyers argued because he is black he's more dangerous
2
83
9K
wildfire replied
The story about how a Missouri man was wrongfully convicted of killing his wife is such an infuriating miscariage of justice
35
6K
SpoopySpeedster replied
CNN: SCOTUS stays execution of Georgia death row inmate amid claims of racial bias
8
3K
skullmuffins replied
Top Bottom