Print Version
E-mail This StoryThe fate of Charles Dean Hood lies in the hands of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Attorneys for Hood filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the CCA asking for a new trial. Hood is currently on death row and has escaped five executions.
Hood’s attorney Gregory W. Wiercioch, who is bound by a gag order, revealed in his petition, Hood’s right to a new trial is because he did not have an impartial judge or a fair trial in his capital murder case. Wiercioch believes these points were proven in depositions taken on Sept. 8 and Sept. 9 in the Collin County District Court.
Judge Verla Sue Holland, who presided over Mr. Hood’s trial in 1990, and former District Attorney Thomas O’Connell, who prosecuted the case, admitted to a secret, sexually intimate relationship that lasted for many years.
The petition states that in a deposition taken on Sept. 8, O’Connell testified that the romantic relationship began around 1984-1985. He said the romantic encounters continued until the middle of 1989, and may even have continued beyond that time, and that the two had even discussed the possibility of marriage. According to O’Connell, he and Holland remained good friends, and he testified that they did not stop seeing each other until 1991-1992.
Holland, in her deposition taken on Sept. 9, said that the romantic relationship began sometime in 1982 and the encounters ended in 1987, according to Thursday’s filing.
The petition details how Holland and O’Connell “were determined to keep the relationship secret.” Both Holland and O’Connell admitted they were married at the time of their sexual encounters.
The petition states “The truth was deliberately concealed in this case for nearly 20 years. Hood’s attorney wrote the fortress of silence that had long protected Holland and O’Connell collapsed. This revelation casts a deep shadow over justice in this case, the petition states. Robert Schuwerk, a nationally recognized expert in the area of lawyer professional responsibility and malpractice, said from an ethical standpoint the case should be retried.
“We have a process in Texas for seeing to it that judges presiding cases be impartial and can’t have favor for one side or the other,” Schuwerk said. It was alleged and now proven, there was a long-term intimate personal relationship between the judge and person trying the case. It was not professional respect, it was much deeper and extended over the years.”
Schuwerk said regardless of any evidence against any person in a death penalty case, the judicial process should be fair and unbiased.
“A litigant should not go into a death penalty trial with two strikes against him,” Schuwerk said. “Jurors are curious how the judge feels in any trial. She could unknowingly have scowled at the defense and smiled at the prosecution, which is biased. The jurors can get a strong impression the prosecution is being favored, with no words said.”
Today’s filing said that Holland’s intimate sexual relationship with O’Connell constitutionally disqualified her from presiding over Hood’s trial and deprived Hood of his right to a fair and impartial tribunal.
Hood’s attorneys asked the CCA to grant Hood a new trial, or remand the case to the convicting court for further proceedings.
In June, the CCA dismissed Hood’s judicial bias claim, which included an affidavit by a former district attorney who worked in the office with O’Connell, stating that the affair was “common knowledge.” That claim did not include the sworn depositions of Holland and O’Connell.
Schuwerk believes if the CCA denies a retrial, Hood’s attorneys will get the Supreme Court involved.
“If they deny relief it will be pretty much over,” Schuwerk said. “They are a court of last resort. I would imagine they will make a decision fairly fast.”
Hood’s attorneys believe the Attorney General of Texas is not without fault in this debacle.
According to the petition, he eventually aligned himself with Hood by filing an amicus brief calling for a thorough review of the unique issues in this case. The Attorney General emphasized that Hood’s allegations were “unsubstantiated” and refused to take a position on whether this relationship existed.
Hood’s attorneys believe the Attorney General failed to restore the public’s faith in the judiciary, while castigating Hood’s attorneys for not coming forward earlier with credible, compelling evidence of this furtive relationship, which raises serious questions about his commitment to justice in this case.
Hood’s attorneys believe they cannot be faulted for failing to develop earlier evidence to support the relationship.
The petition states Holland and O’Connell maintained their silence until a court ordered them to speak, just weeks ago.
In 1990, Hood was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for killing Ronald Williamson and Tracie Lynn Wallace.
Contact Stephanie Flemmons at sflemmons@acnpapers.com
