GUILTY TX - Julissa Quezada, 3, John, 1, & Mary Jane Rubio, 2 mos, beheaded, 11 March 2003

New Posts

D

Doyle

New Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
868
Reaction score
76
Website
www.
Oh God, this is so sick! I don't give a hoot about how 'tragic his childhood' was or how 'sick' he is. SNUFF HIM!
And the mother, whose place it is to protect her children from any and all harm, who held them down while he killed them. SNUFF HER TOO!
 
These are both very sick people. The death penalty is too good for them. Put them in prison with the general population for life. How any woman can hold their child for a man to decapitate them is beyond me. Evil personified!
 
Texas court overturns conviction of man found guilty of beheading three children
HOUSTON (AP) — A man condemned to death for killing and beheading his common-law wife's three children had his conviction overturned Wednesday by a divided Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

In a 5-4 ruling, the state's highest criminal appeals court said John Allen Rubio's conviction and death sentence four years ago were improper because statements from his common-law wife, Angela Camacho, erroneously were allowed into evidence.

She refused to testify, so Rubio's lawyers could not challenge Camacho's statements by cross-examining her, the court said.

Three statements she made about the slayings — two in writing and one on a videotape — were offered into testimony by a police officer at Rubio's trial. The trial judge, over objections from Rubio's lawyers, allowed the testimony.

more at:

http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/0912/conviction_overturned_ap.html
 
Thats a shame.
Too bad he hadnt inhaled enough spray paint to kill himself before he beheaded the children
 
I didn't understand from the article I read with the Chronicle if he would automatically be retried again?
 
Amraann said:
I don't think so wouldn't double deopardy apply??
Click to expand...
i dont think it would. they ruled he had a error in his first trial so he would get a new trial. if he had been found not guilty the first time no amount of error could get him retried. i think the way it works is if found guilty you can ask for a retrial over and over and if a large enough error is found you get 1. if found not guilty the state can not ask for a do over based on double jeopardy.
 
John Allen Rubio could return to Cameron County within the next 30 to 60 days where he will be retried for the March 2003 murder and beheading of his three young children.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday overturned Rubio’s conviction in the brutal mur-ders. He had received the death penalty and remains incarcerated at the Polunsky Unit in Livingston, Texas.

The court’s ruling means Rubio is no longer on death row and will be brought back to the Rio Grande Valley where he will be arraigned on capital murder charges and “hopefully be given a no bond,” District Attorney Armando Villalobos said.

The district attorney’s office will seek the death penalty, Villalobos said, adding that he doesn’t expect the case to be ready for trial before summer 2008.

“We have to have experts appointed again, investigators appointed again. We have to track down wit-nesses all over again, basically we have to start from scratch,” Villalobos said.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/rubio_80181___article.html/court_camacho.html
 
Juries need to hear everything on both sides to make a decision that makes sense, in my opinion.


Jeana (DP) said:
Texas court overturns conviction of man found guilty of beheading three children
HOUSTON (AP) — A man condemned to death for killing and beheading his common-law wife's three children had his conviction overturned Wednesday by a divided Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

In a 5-4 ruling, the state's highest criminal appeals court said John Allen Rubio's conviction and death sentence four years ago were improper because statements from his common-law wife, Angela Camacho, erroneously were allowed into evidence.

She refused to testify, so Rubio's lawyers could not challenge Camacho's statements by cross-examining her, the court said.

Three statements she made about the slayings — two in writing and one on a videotape — were offered into testimony by a police officer at Rubio's trial. The trial judge, over objections from Rubio's lawyers, allowed the testimony.

more at:

http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/0912/conviction_overturned_ap.html
Click to expand...
 
GlitchWizard said:
Juries need to hear everything on both sides to make a decision that makes sense, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Juries can hear things on both sides that the courts deem legally available to them. No jury on American soil has ever heard EVERYTHING. There are things that are too prejudicial for a jury to hear and that would make every trial suspect and nothing would ever stick.
 
Jeana (DP) said:
Juries can hear things on both sides that the courts deem legally available to them. No jury on American soil has ever heard EVERYTHING. There are things that are too prejudicial for a jury to hear and that would make every trial suspect and nothing would ever stick.
Click to expand...

I mean everything on both sides. There are things that would clear a friend of mine (or at least give reasonable doubt) that were not heard at trial due to the lawyer being a twit.

On the other hand, If someone has repeated a behavior many times, and the jury assumes it was just once in extenuating circumstances, guilty people can walk.

Just seems like if a person is to make a decision, they need the facts. Not just the facts according to what someone decides they want you to hear.
 
GlitchWizard said:
I mean everything on both sides. There are things that would clear a friend of mine (or at least give reasonable doubt) that were not heard at trial due to the lawyer being a twit.

On the other hand, If someone has repeated a behavior many times, and the jury assumes it was just once in extenuating circumstances, guilty people can walk.

Just seems like if a person is to make a decision, they need the facts. Not just the facts according to what someone decides they want you to hear.
Click to expand...

Well the laws on what to keep out benefit the defense more than they benefit the prosecution, so on that score, I say what the hell. However, with the legal system in this country already so backed up with appeals, there's got to be a limit on what can be presented. Unfortunately "twit" lawyers do happen and that's why "ineffective counsel" is usually at the top of every appeal.
 
GlitchWizard said:
I mean everything on both sides. There are things that would clear a friend of mine (or at least give reasonable doubt) that were not heard at trial due to the lawyer being a twit.

On the other hand, If someone has repeated a behavior many times, and the jury assumes it was just once in extenuating circumstances, guilty people can walk.

Just seems like if a person is to make a decision, they need the facts. Not just the facts according to what someone decides they want you to hear.
Click to expand...
and a jury can convict a man who may be guilty of a crime in the past but not this time based on prejudice. for example, a man has been convicted of molesting his kids.his neighbors kid is raped and killed and her body dumped in a river. no DNA due to the body being in water. when the jury hears about his past they find him guilty not due to evidence but the belief he did it before he must have done it again. while i have no problem with a child molester going away forever or even getting the DP unjustly i would not want whoever really killed the child to get away with it and when you convict the wrong man that is what happens.
 
sherri79 said:
and a jury can convict a man who may be guilty of a crime in the past but not this time based on prejudice. for example, a man has been convicted of molesting his kids.his neighbors kid is raped and killed and her body dumped in a river. no DNA due to the body being in water. when the jury hears about his past they find him guilty not due to evidence but the belief he did it before he must have done it again. while i have no problem with a child molester going away forever or even getting the DP unjustly i would not want whoever really killed the child to get away with it and when you convict the wrong man that is what happens.
Click to expand...

Blah. I want things to be easy. I want a lie detector test that is beyond reproach so we can automate things. A crime is committed, everyone is "scanned" by satilite, and whoever did it glows bright yellow. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 85 more.
Total: 3,993 (members: 86, guests: 3,907)

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
3,907
Total visitors
3,993
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,663
Messages
17,957,212
Members
228,583
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top