Judge Interjects, Tells Jury That God Wants A Not Guilty Verdict

http://www.newsweek.com/did-god-speak-texas-judge-786121?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=yahoo_news&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news

If I had been on the jury (and had the nerve), I would have said, "Your Honor, that decision is up to us - the 12 people here. And as far as I can see, God is not one of us. If he wants to, God is able to address each of us individually, by means of our conscience. And that is where it should remain."

Prosecutor could have made it easy. Just reaquire that GOD be allowed to be cross-examined.

HH =)

This clown makes Roy Moore seem OK. He should be removed from the bench, however, this being Texas, he'll probably be promoted to a higher court.

Judge Moore got pretty far and most people in AL still agree with him about God's law in everything.

This is potentially part of the legacy of this administration for a lifetime.

It seems there are more judges who have no intention of separating church and state.

It's scary, but all the more reason to speak up and educate people about the logical flaws of religious claims.

"It seems there are more judges who have no intention of separating church and state."

You've just described the entire Utah legal system.

It is so damned irritating that first, morons like this actually believe they "know" god's mind (I *insist* that he claim in open court that he hears the voice of god and that it guides his rulings), but that he has the unmitigated gall to actually violate the "appearance of impartiality" using his gawd as an authority to overrule judicial canons of behavior.

Second, that anyone might question if this is actually the practice of theocratic governance, over the totally innocent -

Third, victim, to whom he attempted to deny justice, using a theocratic "ruling," from the voice of his gawd in his head, or burning in his bosom or privates or wallet or wherever the hell his corruption lives

Were I the FBI, I would be obtaining a warrant for every electronic device this creep might have bumped into.

In a fb post on the link, Skip Davis attempts to defend the judge, stating that the judge must have "saw something" that somehow brought the prosecutor's case into question. What a load of bs. There are judicial means for properly presenting that evidence to a jury, including inviting/allowing the defence to present that "proper" evidence, even if it was evidence against a corrupt prosector/wrongful evidence. Wouldn't the judge's gawd be more pleased to actually prosecute the guilty, than to wrongly accuse any truthful victims of lying? In open court, on the record, inflicting additional harm.

Since his gawd demands no such integrity of him, the victim should sue him into the poorhouse for slander, because speaking for gawd is outside the scope of his judicial duties.

Since Skip Davis sees the judge's actions as defensible, that somehow a "wrongful prosecution" is "acceptably" addressed by accusing the victim of lying, rather than bringing into evidence any possible wrongdoing of the prosecution, I call his ethics into question as well. Would they hoth leave a "dirty" prosecutor untouched, for the sake of good 'ol boys, at the expense of a victim? C'mon, let's have it straight, blind justice, light of day, truth, justice, the American way, all if the ethics that these two turn into horse manure.


https://www.legalethicstexas.com/Ethics-Resources/Rules/Texas-Code-of-Judicial-Conduct