Got Jesus?

Would you rather sit on a pew or sit in jail?

That's the choice being offered in the town of Bay Minette, Alabama for those accused of non-violent misdemeanors (let's forget, for a minute, the absurdity of putting someone convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor in jail). In exchange for attending church on a weekly basis, a defendant can have his or her case dismissed.

I thought Judge Clinton here in Houston had a goofy idea when he offered to reduce community service hours in exchange for reading a Christian how-to book. That was nothing.

The police chief sees nothing odd about the program. He doesn't think it violates the First Amendment because no one is forcing folks to take part and participants can pick the church of their choice. He thinks it's a good idea. And it saves the city the $75 it would cost to house an inmate per day.

I'm all for alternative methods of sentencing and rehabilitating folks. Just locking them up in the county jail (or the state pen) ain't working. Giving someone an alternative to their destructive behavior can't help being a step in the right direction.

But church? Religion has been used for centuries as a tool of manipulating the masses. Tell people that their lives aren't going well because God isn't happy is a masterful way to getting them to tune out the inequities in our daily lives and not question authority. Religion has been used to justify murder, homophobia and sexual abuse.

The charlatans who parade in front of the television cameras live high on the hog as they press their congregants to give up more and more of their hard-earned income because "God will give it back ten-fold!" Just look who's living in the McMansion an driving the Mercedes.

And what about that whole First Amendment thing? You know, the little provision that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. The Fourteenth Amendment applied those prohibitions to the states.

Offering to dismiss a case if a person attends church every week for a year discriminates against non-Christians and athiests. It violates the very spirit of equal protection under the law. Enacting such a policy confers additional benefits on those who share the religious belief of the judge.

Is the city getting a cut of the tithes?

Court nixes no video policy

Lance Baxter, the presiding judge in of Court Court No. 3 in Collin County, Texas, has had an interesting, to say the least, policy regarding the playing of DWI videos at trial. They weren't.

Judge Baxter did not allow the prosecution or the defense to show the video during trial. They could talk about it. They could ask the officers involved, or other witnesses, about it. They could refer to it during their closing argument. But they could not pop it into the VCR or DVD player and hit play.

You see, Judge Baxter, believed that the only proper time for the jury to see the video was during their deliberations. The six folks in the box weren't allowed to view the video within the context of the trial. They were expected to remember the points the defense made while cross-examining the officers involved.

In his first point of error, appellant contends the trial court's ruling forbidding the playing of exhibits during trial, and more broadly its policy on video evidence, constitutes an abuse of discretion, deprived him of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and Article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution, and deprived him of his right to present a defense and confront the witnesses against him in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Appellant concedes the trial court has the discretion to set reasonable restrictions on how video evidence is published to the jury, but he contends a blanket policy prohibiting the use of such evidence during direct and cross-examination without regard to the individual facts and circumstances of a case is an abuse of discretion. Appellant contends the ruling excluding videotape evidence harmed him by eliminating his counsel's ability to present evidence in a manner that allows the jury to assimilate it as the trial progresses. He contends it is unreasonable to expect jurors to remember details developed during examination and cross-examination about recordings they have not seen or heard, and diminishes his ability to effectively cross-examine witnesses by removing the jurors' ability to actually see the impeachment evidence. In the event the jury does choose to examine the videotape during its deliberations, appellant contends the failure to present it contemporaneously with the testimony discussing it makes it more difficult for the jury to match up the video with the questions asked because the lawyers are unable to show the jury what is being referenced. Appellant contends his constitutional rights are violated by a ruling that deprives his counsel of the ability to show properly admitted evidence to the jury, explain its significance, use it to support opinions that appellant was not intoxicated, and to confront and impeach the State's witnesses to expose inconsistencies in the witnesses's testimony. 

But no longer.

In  v. Packer v. State, No. 05-10-00552-CR (Tex.App.--Dallas, 2011), the Dallas Court of Appeals said that Judge Baxter's policies violated Mr. Packer's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present a defense and to confront the witnesses against him.

 We agree with the parties that the trial court's ruling prohibiting the publication of the videotape evidence to the jury in a timely manner, a decision preordained by the trial court's policy without reference to the facts and circumstances of this case, was arbitrary and constitutes an abuse of the trial court's discretion

That such a policy was allowed to be carried out is a travesty. So much so that the state submitted a letter brief acknowledging that the policy violated Mr. Packer's right to an open trial.

Of course, so as not to lean too far in guaranteeing a defendant's right to a fair trial, the court decided not to publish the opinion - meaning it is not to be cited to as authority in subsequent cases.