Allegations that the trial judge and a prosecutor in his 1990 trial were in a long-term intimate relationship did not win death row inmate Charles Dean Hood state habeas relief before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. But on Feb. 24, Hood did prevail in a subsequent habeas petition also filed with the CCA, this time arguing that the jury that heard his case was not fully informed about the extent of his mental retardation when it considered his punishment.
In a split decision, the CCA held in Ex Parte Charles Dean Hood that Hood should receive a new punishment trial. The majority came to that conclusion after examining the Penry line of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court — a series of opinions that requires jurors to be informed about the mental retardation of a defendant as a mitigating factor in determining his punishment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
