Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Politics is a contact sport. You don’t have to look hard to find examples of that today. If you’re engaged in policy making or just want to get an insider's look into how some of the biggest issues facing Texans play out, then this is your podcast!
A political veteran with 30 years’ experience of lobbying in Texas and throughout the United States for some of the largest corporations in the world. I’ve spent my entire career in backrooms, and statehouse hallways helping to craft laws and policies and NOW, I want to bring you inside some of these discussions so you have access to the inner workings of the Texas StateHouse. You’ll find it revealing, useful and actionable- keeping YOU involved in today's most important conversations.
So, tune into the conversation, just search State House with Frank Santos and subscribe on your favorite podcast app so you don’t miss a minute. Your seat at the table starts now!
Judge Craig Enoch, welcome to Statehouse. Really appreciate you being on the program today. For our listeners and viewers, I'll just give I wanna give a little brief background. You're well recognized person, but to some people listening that maybe, have not been involved in the judicial or or legislative business, they maybe they may not know your name, but you served 10 years on the Texas Supreme Court. And prior to that, another 10 to 12 years, I believe, on the district court and also the court of appeals.
Speaker 1:Is that right? Did I get that correct?
Speaker 2:That's correct. The numbers the numbers are roughly
Speaker 1:They kind of yeah. They roughly a long time, you know, many years of judicial service. And so we very much appreciate you being here today, particularly because of the subject we're gonna talk about. So just as a little background, we did a program on, the Robert Roberson case, that recently popped up because the house criminal jurisprudence committee held a hearing in which they intervened in the execution of a death penalty case. And, people can read about, Roberson and and, but he was convicted about 20 years ago and of murdering his, his young daughter.
Speaker 1:I think she was 2 years old, I believe. And, got the death penalty and was set to be executed that day. And the legislature the legislative committee, the house juris criminal jurisprudence held a hearing and had, you know, doctor Phil and John Grisham, and we were there. It was, it was quite a quite a big show. And so there's kind of 2 issues that really have come out about this, and this is why it's so important that, I want to have this discussion with you.
Speaker 1:Is one is the whole shaken baby syndrome issue or case, cause of action or criminal action. And then there's the separation of powers issue, which is sort of over the top of that. And so there was a lot of questions. Did the house criminal jurisprudence committee have the jurisdiction to actually hold a hearing and intervene? Not that they could make a decision about whether or not, he was going to be executed, but he, in fact, now is gotta stay because of some, following, things that occurred with the county and then the Supreme Court, I believe, once the separation of powers issue resolved.
Speaker 1:I believe that's correct. Yeah. So I'd I'd love to get your your, your thoughts on, all of those issues. You know, we can talk about the shaken baby, but I mean, particularly, I'm interested in how you see the the state of Texas legislature intervening in a judicial matter and how that plays out, you know, as a as a former Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 2:Sure. Happy to visit about it. My opinion is no better than anybody else's, but, you know, I've had a lot of years experience. And I found, by way of background, when I was a trial judge, I kinda sort of decided, okay. What's gonna what resolves this dispute in such a way that other people will kinda understand how they conduct their affairs?
Speaker 2:And I I slept fine. Whatever decision I made, I slept fine because I knew there was a court of appeals. There'd be 3 judges who would review my rulings if somebody was upset and want to appeal. And, so there was somebody checking my papers.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:And, you know, it never bothered me that they'd go up in the court of appeals. I had a pretty good track record, for my decisions at the court of appeals. But if I was wrong, I wanted to know I was wrong because the worst thing you can have is somebody walking away and not feeling that their issues have been fully vetted. When I got to the court of appeals, it got more difficult to make the decision because I had 2 other judges sitting on the panel. You had 3 judges looking at this is generally the rule.
Speaker 2:And, so I had to get at least one other judge to agree with me. Well, if I had misled that judge, I still slept okay because I had the supreme court. If it was way off, then the the supreme court could, with its choice, pick the case and say they're gonna look at it and and do whatever they wanna do with it. When I got to the supreme court, it got infinitesimally more difficult to get a decision because I had that that court, we had 9, had to get 4 judges to agree with me. Right.
Speaker 2:So it's much harder to get a degree an agreement with them, but then I started sleeping less well because there was nobody looking over our shoulder. Yeah. And if I somehow had gone a direction and gotten 4 to agree with me and I was wrong, there was not gonna be any solution to them. It's that's just the way it was gonna be. So by way of background, my experience had been that by the time an issue like this gets to the Texas Supreme Court, it is gonna be a much more deeply thought about, much more serious, resolution coming out of it.
Speaker 2:And, it's not it's not an easy case to call. The you know, one of the things I've thought about for quite some time, you see some politicization of judicial decisions where it was right. So my side was right in a political sense, and the other side, it was wrong. And so that court was wrong to join that. I mean, they see it as 2 teams out there fighting.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:And Very tribal. Tribal. And that's the way they go. And, you know, it's it's a little bit more than an umpire or a referee. But if you think the call is wrong, you're gonna assess all sorts of reasons for it.
Speaker 2:But they try and use it in 30 second sound bites or 10 second sound bites. What you really have to do is read the opinion. Or as, one of my colleagues, he's still serving, on the Supreme Court said many, many years ago, you measure the correctness of the opinion by the persuasiveness of the writing. So you may see an outcome, and then everybody wants a yay or nay on it, because of their particular view of the political issue behind it. But there's no discussion of, well, I read the opinion, and they followed the wrong cases, or they have their reasoning is wrong.
Speaker 2:And, this Roberson case, this issue is the one of the things where you're seeing people line up, well, it's right or wrong or
Speaker 1:That's right.
Speaker 2:You know? Mhmm. Roberson's a bad dude or Roberson's a good dude or Robertson's not well or you know, you see those questions. When it gets to the Supreme Court, that's really not what they're gonna be answering. They're not gonna be answering, that kind of question.
Speaker 2:They're gonna be answering the much deeper question about whether a committee can issue a subpoena. But more more to the point, can it enforce its subpoena? Can the executive branch ignore the subpoena? You know? And then does the court step in to resolve it if the 2 branches can't figure out what they're gonna do?
Speaker 2:So that's where these questions come from.
Speaker 1:It's a big it's a huge question because I've never in 30 years of working in politics, I've never seen this kind of conflict occur. It may have occurred, but I don't think it's it's occurred like this. This is an interesting, this interesting dilemma.
Speaker 2:Yeah. It is. And, you know, you may have get an opinion out of the supreme court if it goes ahead and and writes an opinion in this case. You may have an opinion. The only place Roberson appears is kind of the statement of where this case came from.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:But after that, it just it'll be more of a discussion between the branches of government. So that's, you
Speaker 1:know and and so that's really kind of the the curious thing that that I found is, you know, when we did our recent, podcast, with one of the committee members, they felt like they had oversight authority over well, they had oversight authority. I'll say it like that. Sure. And I know their oversight authority in in Krimgeour, is over TDCJ, but it's not oversight over the case, the death penalty case. And so, but but they were he was very, you know, you know, very sure that they needed to do something because he felt like that, I I believe he explained it.
Speaker 1:You know, we don't wanna put someone to death that shouldn't be put to death. And I think maybe there was also referral back to the 2013 statute, which is really probably more I don't know. Maybe maybe that's that's that's a little more pointed is where is where they they feel like they have oversight is the 2013 statute that allowed for someone who had been, convicted. And I don't think it I think it's criminal any criminal criminal conviction. I don't think it's it's necessarily just death penalty.
Speaker 1:Could seek to, a new trial through the court of appeals. And maybe, you know, maybe that's the question. But in this case, it it was really more about you know, it ended up working out as a a state. Now I know eventually, they're gonna there it's gonna there's gonna be a new death warrant and and all that's gonna happen. But right now, everything's, kind of on hold, I guess, until they figure out this issue.
Speaker 2:And, I think there are 2 things involved in this. By the way, the folks may not know it, but the ledgers the individual representatives are arguing among themselves in the Supreme Court. So you have some representatives saying the committee can do this. Obviously, the representatives on the committee.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And then you have representatives not on the committee saying they can't do this.
Speaker 1:That's right.
Speaker 2:So it's a it's an internal fight as well playing out, in addition to the fight between, inter branches. In Texas, we call them branches rather than, you know, branches of government, we call them departments. We have the judicial department. It's you know, I guess, we we wanna be similar, but we wanna be Texas. Right.
Speaker 1:So we have to
Speaker 2:be different. So we have to be different, in it. So two things are going on. Yes. The the the legislative branch does have oversight over the operations of state to the extent that they pass the laws.
Speaker 2:They're not they they pass the laws, and to that extent, they have the right to, in in my opinion, they can subpoena the want to. And it could be somebody off of death row or it could be somebody, who's a long term sentence or anything if they if if that they they can do this. They can subpoena them. The deeper question really is, is there purpose for subpoenaing them a factor to be considered? In other words, we've got arguments in this case.
Speaker 2:Well, the only reason they did that is they don't like the death penalty and they don't want him put to death. And so they did this to interfere and the sky will fall if the court allows them to do this because in any time, death penalty is getting close to execution, they'll just come in, get it stayed, and you'll just never have it. Well, I think that's a that's a policy consideration about how this happens. But the the issue that will be, I think, is whether the committee can in this case, can the committee enforce its subpoena? The committee can issue the subpoena.
Speaker 2:It has the power to issue the subpoena. But as the parties note, the committee members bring the action on behalf of the house, and it's the other house members are saying, well, that's not an action of the house. That's an action of the committee. So one of the questions, it may not get answered because the Supreme Court may not need to. But I see one of the answers about if the committee has the power to issue the subpoena, then would they not necessarily implicitly have the power to enforce it?
Speaker 2:You know, if I were to look at that case, I'd say the committee has the power of the but you'll see but is the in ordering any employee of the house like the sergeant of arms or something, would not the collective body be the one necessary to do that? You see this play out very simply in other city council races and all. I I
Speaker 1:never thought of it that way. I guess I just felt like the I guess I I was seeing it in terms of, just the committee itself having the power to, compel somebody to come and speak to the committee. But, really, in order to do that, they would have to since he's in Huntsville, you know, you you got a lot there's a lot more that goes on there. They would have to actually, you know, transport, Roberson Roberson to, the state house. And and, when we were there, I I saw these cameras set up down this hallway, and I kept thinking because it was Sure.
Speaker 1:Everybody was it was rumored he was coming. And, I think they were waiting for doctor Phil. I don't think they were waiting for Robertson. So is what I suspect. But, so I don't know that I've seen, other than maybe a group of legislators saying that they don't feel like the committee had this ability to to to intervene in this way.
Speaker 1:I haven't seen I know I know the governor definitely is and and the attorney general have said they're they're they do not have that authority, that only the governor has the power to stay, which, you know, it's it's an interesting thing because I think that the way they seem to be proposing this this committee hearing is not as a stay or a a you know, he's he's innocent or guilty, but more we just wanna hear from him.
Speaker 2:Sure.
Speaker 1:Although, obviously, it raises the awareness so high that he gotta stay.
Speaker 2:You know, and it goes back to it goes back to what I say. Will I think I think the court will not get involved in the question of the the authority of the house to subpoena anybody they want to. So because what some of the arguments that are being made against the subpoena is well, there were the reasoning for the subpoena. I don't think the Supreme Court wants to get into being a decider of whether the house has a proper motive for issuing the subpoena. That's a house business.
Speaker 1:I guess, technically, they could subpoena anybody they want to.
Speaker 2:They could subpoena anybody they want to. The the question is, on that level, is it a is the house seeking to enforce the subpoena? So I've got a committee that house can only operate on how its committees view the legislation recommendations. And so as the representatives argue, you know, well,
Speaker 1:some
Speaker 2:of them argue they can't the committee can't issue the subpoena, but what happens is it's really on the enforcement side. The committee sits there and sets up the subpoena, says we're gonna subpoena them. They send out subpoena. The pro witness doesn't show. Now about enforcement.
Speaker 2:The house is the body, it seems to me, as as the organization has to make the corporate decision about processing that.
Speaker 1:So how would so okay. I I you know, I've been I've been doing this for so many years, and I and I still find things that I don't I don't know about the about the legislative process. Okay. So the, the committee gets, subpoenas and then he doesn't show. Right.
Speaker 1:Someone decides he doesn't he's he's not gonna show. Right. Maybe the governor makes a call to the, you know, TDCJ and says, you're not spending the money to drive this guy down here. Whatever the case may be. I mean, I'm I'm I'm not saying that happened.
Speaker 1:I'm just saying assume that happened. Then the next step is the enforcement as you're talking about. So sergeant at arms, they'd send out to go and get somebody, kinda like they they did when the legislature the legislature was breaking quorum and they needed to go get those legislators to come back in to to make a quorum they can send out. And that is a decision of the I'm assuming that's a decision that comes from the speaker of the house. I would imagine Sure.
Speaker 1:Has to approve that that's you know, as he's speaking for the house of representatives, I think that's right.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:So in this case
Speaker 2:Well, it's a because you don't have a quorum, there's a special provision that allows a majority of those in attendance at the house to, order the the sergeant arms to go gather them, and that can be under the authority of the speaker.
Speaker 1:So does in this case, would they have to seek they have to seek out the, permission from from the speaker, I'm assuming.
Speaker 2:That's part of the argument that they're making. The subpoena wasn't signed right by the right person and the authority to send the sergeant at arms to go deliver the subpoena, those kind of issues is that organizational structure issue that, as I say, I'm not sure the court's gonna reach that. But, there's there's a lot of cases when you've got a like a city council. You know, somebody tries to do something and and make some take some authority position and try to enforce it. If if the corporate body hasn't authorized that action, it's highly unlikely the individual can move forward with any sort of enforcing
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:What they're trying to do.
Speaker 1:So, so if the if the Supreme Court then just takes just the the blanket issue that whether or not they have the ability to subpoena, essentially, is what they would be doing. And they say, yeah. They have the right. They can subpoena. Sure.
Speaker 1:And they don't they don't go any further than that. And then the committee comes back, and we go through the process again. I mean, what do you see as sort of the next step? Like, there there's gonna be it seems like if they really wanna push this, there's going to be a I don't wanna say that I mean, escalation, like, you know, how do they push to the next step? Because it's it's sort of circular.
Speaker 1:Right? If they if it's just about the subpoena and they say, yeah, they have to write the subpoena, and they do it. They do it again. And and then we're back to square 1 where we're arguing about what authority they have. Or do we does it just go away?
Speaker 2:I don't think it goes away. Actually, the I'm half joking when I say it's not worthwhile to tell the Texas Supreme Court it doesn't have jurisdiction to decide a question because, obviously, it's gonna decide whether it has jurisdiction to decide the question.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:And you have a concurring opinion in some, you know, temporary restraining order that the trial judge made where, Evan Young with 2 other judges joining him, justice Heck and justice Huddle, chief justice Heck, really is saying, you know, this looks like a a a fight between the house and the the the legislative branch and the executive branch, and they ought to work those things out. If they don't work those things out, well, the question of whether the house can, can be if the house can, through its subpoena direct, that that the Department of Criminal Justice has to deliver a prisoner who's otherwise to be executed to the house for a hearing, that's a civil matter. That's not a criminal matter. Once they say it's a civil matter, then that puts it in the hands of the Texas Supreme Court to resolve it. And so Okay.
Speaker 2:I think the court the determination as, judge Young said, and and it's concurring opinion. So it's not the voice of the court. But sometimes you sense that they don't wanna take an official position on it, but they'll let one of their colleagues write on it, and it comes out in a concurring opinion like this. I suspect this was sort of a sentiment of the court, that, you go you go figure this thing out. But if you don't, we'll be back here.
Speaker 2:And they they told the trial court to help, that go back to trial court and you kinda monitor this thing, you manage this thing and see how it works out. And then the Department of Criminal Justice comes in, and and now at the Texas Supreme Court is arguing that they're interfering with our, executive function to execute Roberson. And then they raised the question, is the subpoena valid? Does it does the committee have the authority? Well, they issued the subpoena.
Speaker 2:It's to me, it's kinda the enforcement of this subpoena is the other problem that they raise. And, they also say that the court doesn't have jurisdiction to decide this. It's a battle between them. And as I said, I think the concurring opinion has already decided. Yeah.
Speaker 2:The Supreme Court's if they can't work it out, the Supreme Court's gonna have to
Speaker 1:They're gonna have to deal with it.
Speaker 2:Deal with that question.
Speaker 1:So if I could just change, subjects just a little bit. So they never really get they're never really gonna get this is kind of the question I had. They don't they don't get to the the underlying, issue of how he was convicted. And I know there's a lot of, whether it's this the the the other the other piece of it is the 2013 statute, which I don't quite understand, and that was that it'll it'll and I think I think there was also an amendment to it. I mean, there might have been a an amended part of that statute in 2015, maybe.
Speaker 1:Sure. What did that statute do and and that that they're operating under? Because this is where it kinda started is it it kind of opened the door. Right? For him?
Speaker 1:Sure.
Speaker 2:For quite some time in the criminal justice sphere, people have very been very concerned about volition. Did I really intend to commit the crime? And sometimes, there's a there's a kind of the forensic science. Well, we don't have any we didn't see an eyewitness, identify that you did it. But we've got the science out here that when you follow the metrics of the science Right.
Speaker 2:It leads
Speaker 1:to the
Speaker 2:conclusion Mhmm. That, you did it. And so there was some some sense that maybe there's, over time, people begin to say there's real problems with the science. It doesn't it doesn't account for certain variables or whatever it is. And so the statute started saying, if you were convicted based on that science and it becomes challengeable later, then this is an opportunity to have your case reopened and retried.
Speaker 2:And that's where those statutes come from.
Speaker 1:That's what the statute does is so if you were if you were convicted based on some some science that that, as you said, is questionable Yeah. Later, then you might have an opportunity. So so he did he so he does appeal. And I I I wanna say there was probably around maybe 50 people that fell into sort of that category. For those that number might not be correct, but but that appealed.
Speaker 1:And, he was denied. And and so, I guess that denial came right around the time when the death warrant I guess within that 90 days and then he was you know, that day he was set to to be executed. This just came, right off the the press. The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday, the state legislature does not have the power to stall an execution, ending a constitutional crisis that erupted after lawmakers subpoenaed Robert Robertson the third to testify before the committee 4 days after he was scheduled to be put to death. That's interesting.
Speaker 2:Yep.
Speaker 1:And maybe a little unexpected, but I guess I guess depending on how the question was it was asked. Sure. Right? Would that be right? Well,
Speaker 2:it had it it it did. And as I said, I think they they can subpoena anything they want to. The enforcement, can they can they do that? And they're gonna say, I guess what they're saying is you don't have it to stall it. So Which is what happens.
Speaker 2:Which is what happened. And so now they'll put it back on 90 days, and they will go. So they don't they don't as I said, I didn't think they'd kinda reach the issue in the inner fight in the house whether they have it. They'd be on the upper issue. Can the house can the house enforce subpoena against the executive branch executing its its obligation to do that?
Speaker 2:Justice Young started out his concurring opinion to say the court of appeals decides death penalty cases. Yeah. The appellate has all run out. The issue has all been vetted in the proper courts coming through. The only question was left, does the house have the ability to subpoena and affect the work of the executive branch's duty to execute the law.
Speaker 2:And the Supreme Court said and looks like they've announced the opinion.
Speaker 1:They're announcing no.
Speaker 2:They're saying no.
Speaker 1:I mean, we haven't read the opinion, so we don't have the they you know, we'll we'll have a chance to do that. I mean, I just came out. So, but it'll be interesting to see, you know, you know, who was on you know, who who was part of that decision and if there's a dissenting opinion. As you and I know, being working in the the the the, legislative and judicial, bodies for the last, 30 plus years, We know it's not over.
Speaker 2:We know it's not over.
Speaker 1:You know? That's one thing we can be guaranteed. It's not over.
Speaker 2:Well, let me let me add. If the court the court necessarily said it had jurisdiction
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:Because why? Because it it made a pronouncement. It said the house can't stall the execution, with criminal justice, you know, by their subpoena power.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And to reach that question, they followed what justice Young was saying. On that question, it is a civil question, and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide the civil question. So they they all they have jurisdiction decide the question, and they reached the question. They said the house has no power to do that.
Speaker 1:Very interesting. It's fascinating to me because, yeah, I love how they parsed that that that whole question because it didn't have anything to do with their subpoena power. They they didn't they didn't speak to that. They just said you can't intervene. It was very specific.
Speaker 1:Right? You cannot intervene or or stall Stall. A death penalty a death penalty case. Yeah. I'm sure there's there's gonna be, the next iteration of this will be interesting because, I also think there's I don't know this to be true, but, you know, there was a the the last election cycle not this general election cycle, but the last primary cycle was pretty, pretty tough.
Speaker 1:And I know that there was, some of the members I said on that committee or some of the members that were that were actually primaried in the last election cycle, and they won. I mean, they they they won their race. But, you know, you I always wonder about this because, you know, you you know, being involved in in the the you know, just just the politics in general, you know, you never quite know what causes these these things to erupt. And so, you know, I wonder if that's gonna continue. You know, that'll bleed into the next, you know, race for speaker.
Speaker 1:It's gonna be it's just gonna be a you know, I think these are just for things to come. Right? Is is what we need to be prepared for. But I guess the last kind of question I have about this whole case is, and and and it's just really just kind of a open question. The whole shaken baby syndrome criminal, what would you call it?
Speaker 1:The the that he was charged with with shaken baby syndrome. I mean, he's charged with as killing his daughter by shaken baby syndrome
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:Or something like that. You know, as I read, it's interesting how these theories come about because the American Academy of Pediatrics actually sort of developed that that, that theory. And then they a lot of people were some people were convicted on it. And then 6 years later, they pulled back and said, maybe it's not exactly that, you know. It could be something else.
Speaker 1:You know, so, you know, so there's definitely if I were you know, and then you have the whole issue of of him of of Roberson being, you know, autistic as I read that he's he's very severely autistic and if you look at his interviews, he is very difficult to communicate with. So you know you wonder does he really know does he really know what's happening? I mean it's it's a it's a problem. So I understand the legislature, the the committee wanting to get to the bottom of that sort of issue, but that's not their that they Sure. They that's not what they do.
Speaker 1:And I think maybe that's where the Supreme Court said, you might be right. He might have had not a fair trial. Who knows right now? But, you know, right now, you don't have the ability to to stall what happened when he was convicted.
Speaker 2:Maybe I guess my my view I don't I think the Supreme Court, through justice Young's concurring opinion, set it up that they aren't gonna consider any of that. That's the Court of Criminal Appeals. That's the appellate courts. That's the United States Supreme Court, which actually looked at this, to determine the guilt or innocence. And, I think some things that played out in this is, the volition.
Speaker 2:I mentioned that early on. Did did Roberson, as an example, intend or did he do something that he was capable of not doing, but he chose to do it anyway? In other words, was his whatever whatever assuming that he shook the baby. Did he intend to shake the baby hard? The I I mean, those kind of questions are just nearly not answerable.
Speaker 2:No. And the shaken baby was really you look at the injuries and that sort of thing, and so you're it's the forensics about it. Nobody saw it, But because of the way the baby, presented, they say, well, this was shaken baby.
Speaker 1:Shaken baby.
Speaker 2:Shaken baby.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:And if you looked at what the arguments of the of the parties who were trying to stop the execution, not necessarily in the house, stop the execution, they were saying there was other evidence of ailments that the baby had and those sorts of things. Really trying to not really going to whether the baby was shaken, but whether the shaking of the baby caused the death. Well, that's the type of stuff you argue in the court, in the trial court when it's time to present that. And that's the stuff that gets evaluated on the appeals, and that's the stuff that gets presented by Whittier, habeas corpus. Those kind of questions aren't the kind of questions the supreme court was addressing.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:Because one one department, one branch, the legislative branch attempted by its effort did by its effort to stop an execution. As I say, the merits I'll be interested to see if the opinion talks about the motive. Yeah. For subpoenaing, or does it simply say that the timing of this subpoena, it you can't be directing the department not to do its thing, to stop the execution
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:At a timing that stalls its its requirement.
Speaker 1:Its requirement. Right.
Speaker 2:And so obviously, you know, by
Speaker 1:the way, you know, just for the of those those that are listening and and watching, we'll try to put the opinion in the in the notes, of this of this podcast if we can make that if we can make that work so that people can read it. Because I think it's gonna be really interesting to see that. You know, sort of bottom line in all this, I was as as I read through, general Paxton's, his brief on it and as I've and as I've just looked and tried to find out as much information as possible you know, the bottom line is it's just an absolutely sad case. It is it is awful what this little girl apparently had been going through for her short 2 years of life. And, it's sort of like that all gets sort of missed in, you know, all of the is he innocent?
Speaker 1:You know, does he have autism, volition? You know, all these things that that just start to to build up around a case like this. And at the at the at the end of the day, you look and you say, yeah, this poor little baby went through some really horrible stuff because she had so many injuries already. And they say she was sickly. I don't I don't know what that means.
Speaker 1:I I still try to understand what that means that she was sickly. She was sickly because she was being injured. That's really what it looks like to me Sure. By somebody. I don't know if it was him.
Speaker 1:I think it could have been his his former wife or whoever had her before. I mean, you just I just don't know. But it's a very very very sad case.
Speaker 2:It's a it it really is a well, it's a tragic case. It is not it's not a rare case. I'm not talking about shaken baby. It's not a rare case of children, suffering harm
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:At the hands of a relative. If not their parents, then, a close relative. And, again, it's just a it's nearly an intractable problem. Yeah. You have, I know the you have foster care issues.
Speaker 2:You have, what do you do with the child that's in a not sustainable, living condition?
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:But you've got no place to put them. Where Texas is, probably the largest foster care entity in the state with 30,000, probably 40,000 kids now who've been removed with no place to to place them. You just you just have to remove them. And, it it really is. This case is really a representative of tragic a a child didn't get the opportunity to grow and thrive.
Speaker 2:And, I'm not sure there's really an answer, to that except there are a lot of nonprofits organizations, even the state, Health and Human Services with its child protective, department out there really doing just working overtime trying to keep these things from happening.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And
Speaker 2:there'll always be someone who falls through the cracks.
Speaker 1:Yeah. That's that's the unfortunate thing. And then I think you said it a minute ago that what what is you know, is that it's not a it's not uncommon. And that's that's a terrible thing to that this that that it's not uncommon that this happens. And and, so hopefully, you know, this next, maybe this will this will kinda spark the the legislature to take up maybe some of these issues, related back to childcare and and I I know not not childcare, but, you know, protection of children, this next legislative session.
Speaker 1:And, so so it doesn't get to this point. So we're not having to have this conversation. Right? But I, I I really do appreciate it. This has been, it's been fascinating.
Speaker 1:And I your your, your thoughts on where the supreme court, you know, how they do their decision making in the court of appeals and how all these bodies work together has been very, I think, very helpful in kind of getting a better understanding of of what's been going on. And we and we really do appreciate your time with with us and hope we can have you back again. Sure.
Speaker 2:We look forward to
Speaker 1:it. Alright. Thank you, Judge. Appreciate it. Take care.
Speaker 1:Bye bye.