Sunday, February 12, 2006

In Defense of Ken Starr

OK. I jumped on the bandwagon when shown that Ken Starr had submitted some forged statements to California Governator Schwartzenegger in a last ditch effort to keep a death row inmate from being executed February 21st. [See Ken Starr again demonstrates Republican immorality.]

I really have a very low regard for Starr because of his performance as the Prosecutor in the Whitewater case. But Mark Kleiman makes a good case that Starr was depending on the integrity of a defense investigator, and the investigator could not be depended on.

In addition, Mark makes the point that the only reason Morales got the death penalty is that a jailhouse snitch, "...Bruce Samuelson, testified that Morales had bragged during a jailhouse conversation in fluent Spanish that he had planned to rape and kill Winchell." It was solely this testimony by a jailhouse snitch that established the special circumstances required by California law to impose the death penalty. Only it turns out, ten years later it was learned that Morales does not speak Spanish.

Samuelson used his testimony to avoid a prison sentence for his crime. Rather obviously, Samuelson lied on the stand.

In Texas this wouldn't matter. The Court of Criminal Appeals would rubber stamp the conviction, the Governor would sign the order, and Morales would get the needle for not hiring a more expensive attorney. Probably Schwartzenegger will sign the order for fear of alienating the few conservative voters he doesn't already have mad at him. By the time any death penalty case gets this far, the carrying out of the sentence is almost certain. No one wants to get in the way of "justice" for fear of political repercussions. All consideration of the actual crime and the trial is long past, and no miracle has occurred.

My bet is that the forgeries will have so poisoned the air that Schwartzenegger will not be able to do the right thing. Let's hope he surprises me.

See also Ken Star again demonstrates Republican immorality - Perhaps he is not all bad.

Which is the real Starr? Frankly, I don't know. But the Clinton impeachment documents he submitted to Congress indicates a really sexually sick person. Can that person coexist with a person who wants to save someone convicted of a horrendous murder on weak evidence?

Frankly, I'd love to research and write a biography of Ken Starr.

No comments: