In a Houston Chronicle piece headlined “Texas defender drew unfair treatment”, the paper argues that a decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ “12-month suspension of David Dow – a University of Houston law professor who has represented more than 100 death row inmates – for missing an appeals filing deadline in the case of Miguel Paredes” was unfair and “iron-handed”.
The Chronicle’s writer goes so far as to openly charge that the court’s punishment of Dow is “pure retribution.” The basis for such a claim is that “Dow, and other death penalty lawyers, on many issues, both procedural and personal, [have clashed with the court] over the years.”
To claim that the state’s highest court for criminal matters is engaging in personal “retribution” against a guy who often defends death penalty convicts is an extraordinary claim which should demand solid evidence which is not provided.
If such were grounds for retribution would not we be having such monthly as that’s what goes on before a court – disagreement. For every winner in court there is a loser when you get to personalities and lawyers.
To claim that the state’s highest court for criminal matters is engaging in personal “retribution” against a guy who often defends death penalty convicts is an extraordinary claim which should demand solid evidence which is not provided. It seems that because the writer thinks Dow a “zealous advocate for his clients’ interests” he is beyond punishment and thus such must be unfair retribution.
Worse is the circular argument and illogic of the story. It begins by stating that “If Texas is going to have a death penalty, the system for administering it must be fair and just, with the convicted given every opportunity under the law to defend themselves. Execution is too final a punishment for Texans to accept anything less.” And then launches into how unfair it is that the court punished a lawyer for missing an appeal deadline — wait, wait, here it comes, — for a death penalty client!
Circular argument and illogic defines Chronicle story on death penalty lawyer
Robert Pratt
In a Houston Chronicle piece headlined “Texas defender drew unfair treatment”, the paper argues that a decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ “12-month suspension of David Dow – a University of Houston law professor who has represented more than 100 death row inmates – for missing an appeals filing deadline in the case of Miguel Paredes” was unfair and “iron-handed”.
The Chronicle’s writer goes so far as to openly charge that the court’s punishment of Dow is “pure retribution.” The basis for such a claim is that “Dow, and other death penalty lawyers, on many issues, both procedural and personal, [have clashed with the court] over the years.”
To claim that the state’s highest court for criminal matters is engaging in personal “retribution” against a guy who often defends death penalty convicts is an extraordinary claim which should demand solid evidence which is not provided.
If such were grounds for retribution would not we be having such monthly as that’s what goes on before a court – disagreement. For every winner in court there is a loser when you get to personalities and lawyers.
To claim that the state’s highest court for criminal matters is engaging in personal “retribution” against a guy who often defends death penalty convicts is an extraordinary claim which should demand solid evidence which is not provided. It seems that because the writer thinks Dow a “zealous advocate for his clients’ interests” he is beyond punishment and thus such must be unfair retribution.
Worse is the circular argument and illogic of the story. It begins by stating that “If Texas is going to have a death penalty, the system for administering it must be fair and just, with the convicted given every opportunity under the law to defend themselves. Execution is too final a punishment for Texans to accept anything less.” And then launches into how unfair it is that the court punished a lawyer for missing an appeal deadline — wait, wait, here it comes, — for a death penalty client!
This story should have never made it to print.