Today, December 12, 2003, the Acting Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court
sent the Attorney General's office a memo, saying they have denied the state's "cert
petition" with regard to Judge Glenn Thompson's order for a second trial. In other
words, the State asked the Alabama Supreme Court a question: "Did the trial court
abuse its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on the basis of delayed discovery
without identifying any resulting prejudice?" The law, in the form of previous decisions
by the Alabama Supreme Court, says that identifying resulting prejudice is required in
these circumstances. In fact, the Alabama Supreme Court has previously ordered a
Circuit Judge to vacate an order for new trial under virtually identical circumstances. But
for whatever reason, this Supreme Court refused this case. It's my understanding the
Alabama Supreme Court didn't rule in Thompson's favor--they just refused to rule at all.
Had Judge Glenn Thompson not set aside the four jury verdicts, Daniel Wade Moore
would have been guaranteed his appeal would be heard by both the Court of Criminal
Appeals, and the Alabama Supreme Court. Each of the fourteen judges would have
been required to read the entire transcript, looking for any reason to reverse the verdicts.
But when Judge Glenn Thompson set aside the verdicts, the State had no right to
"appeal" at all...
Instead, the State's only option was to file a "petition for writ of mandamus," an
extraordinary event in the criminal justice system. It is, in essence, asking a judge to
sanction another judge, which almost never happens. And when the Court of Criminal
Appeals denied the petition (without ever considering the trial transcript at all), the State's
only option was to ask the Alabama Supreme Court to consider the case. And the
Alabama Supreme Court, with profound problems of their own, refused to consider it.
In brief, the facts and the law have nothing to do with the handling of The State of
Alabama v Daniel Wade Moore.
So now, more than a year after Daniel Wade Moore was found guilty on four counts of
capital murder, it is all "held for naught" because Judge Glenn Thompson said so. He
failed to identify any prejudice against Daniel Wade Moore--he didn't even try. But it
didn't matter. Clearly, Judge Glenn Thompson doesn't have to abide by the law. He IS
the law in The State of Alabama v Daniel Wade Moore.
To be sure, we have a criminal justice system.
Too bad we don't have a victim justice system.
The Decatur Daily has finally mentioned the state's petition to the Alabama Supreme
Court, four days after it was denied. Of course, they have never covered the actual
content of the petition, because it runs counter to their propaganda campaign for Daniel
Moore. The Huntsville Times, as usual, followed in step with the Daily, and it's even
being covered on the AP wire service. Strange such a big story was so late in coming.
Maybe Halbrooks wasn't available to express her elation.
I might point out it's been a year since any actual evidence has been heard by any court.
There have been no hearings, no arguments, and no public proceedings--just
accusations made by lawyers. And the total input from the Court of Criminal Appeals
and the Alabama Supreme Court was one sentence each. We all know what the
Alabama Supreme Court has been up to, rather than hearing this case--everyone in the
country knows. But the CCA let us know last week what they've been doing--writing a
160-page document that orders a trial judge to better explain why he sentenced a
triple-killer to death in 1996, although they could find nothing improper with the
proceedings.
The criminal justice system has lost all contact with the facts and the law, with reality,
and with the voters. It's nothing but a sadomasochistic lawyer game, unworthy of any
respect. They get away with it because rags like the Decatur Daily are too busy playing
politics and making money to ever get around to the facts.