Texas judge interrupts jury, says God told him defendant is not guilty

After reading up on the case, this woman should be jailed anyway for smuggling her illegal immigrant niece into the country.

When her 15 year old niece got pregnant by another 34 year old illegal immigrant, it sounds like the woman tried to blackmail him into paying her the money she spent smuggling her niece into the country.

Now the niece and her two month old baby are in child protective custody.

We need to just send all of them back to Honduras, including the baby.

The judge's term is over dec this year.

I am thinking in cases like this they remove the judge from active trials until his term ends. He can still work in limited ways until then.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

The only excuse for this is if somebody was holding his family hostage and made him say it.

originally posted by: Deetermined
After reading up on the case, this woman should be jailed anyway for smuggling her illegal immigrant niece into the country.

When her 15 year old niece got pregnant by another 34 year old illegal immigrant, it sounds like the woman tried to blackmail him into paying her the money she spent smuggling her niece into the country.

Now the niece and her two month old baby are in child protective custody.

We need to just send all of them back to Honduras, including the baby.

So you care more about the Budas, her neice and the baby than you do about the judge?


**2000 th post...only took the better part of 10 years...***

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

Wow, just wow...How is this even possible? The judge interferes with the jury and it's okay? God says what?

Relax. No, its not okay. Not only was it immediately reported, but the jury didn't pay any attention to the judge. There will undoubtedly be hearings and I wouldn't be surprised if the judge were cited in this case.

I would expect more than just a citation, I would expect him to be held to the same legal restrictions of anyone with regards to jury tampering.

1. The judge was not involved in the penalty phase
2. The jury convicted the defendant anyway
3. His conduct was reported immediately and recognized by all parties as illegit.
4. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct has been informed.
5. The issue has been widely reported

Anything more here? Seems like the proper authorities have been alerted and were pretty much immediately. Looks to me like the Judge will be sanctioned. Isn't that what you want to happen? Any outcries on the judicial system are both premature and exaggerated.

You're acting like you have a desire to protect this judge. Any reason why?

I have no desire to protect this judge and every desire to throw the book at him. Why? Because judges are the last line. A judge is supposed to represent impartiality and the blindness of justice. A judge is supposed to look past the criminal and see only the crime and the merits of the case. When a judge interferes with that he is no longer fit to sit on that hallowed seat. He should know and practice the law with the utmost of care. He shouldn't sell himself out to religious beliefs or visions, nor to private prisons, nor to outside influences.

The jury's decision is immaterial in my eyes (glad she was convicted) but the judge's actions are the subject of this thread... what he did was wrong, and proves his lack of impartiality and proves his inability to sit a jury trial. Yes, he will be slapped on the wrist...THIS TIME. It won't prevent a NEXT TIME.

In the end, one of the very few vestiges of hope and freedom that the USA has is it's legal system, though it can be a morass of hoops to jump through, it usually gets things right. But when the man that presides over the courtroom is abusing his authority, what's left? When that man is showing that he is prone to visions or auditory hallucinations are influencing his words, his acts and his deeds he should not be presiding in such a position of authority.

And I think that's worth discussing.

a reply to: aethertek

You shouldn't talk about the Democrat party that way.

The first step is admitting you have a problem, so I give you a star for that.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Agree with you that Judge should've kept his religious views out of the state proceeding though. That said, it is his court to make a mockery of if he chooses. Surely the defense appreciates the gesture, since any appellate court is likely to give this a second look if not simply to invite the media circus that would accompany it (so many love the spotlight nowadays)

Surely the lawyer will get a mistrial?

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Texas judge interrupts jury, says God told him defendant is not guilty - was it God or was it his conscience?

Either way he should not have done it. No Law in any country where common law forms the basis of the law has the right to overule a jury.

Just goes to show much judges resent having some of their power away by common law.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

What , You People do not Believe in Divine Intervention ? Pfff....

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

God didn’t speak up at his own sons trial. This woman must be pretty special

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Texas judge interrupts jury, says God told him defendant is not guilty - was it God or was it his conscience?

Either way he should not have done it. No Law in any country where common law forms the basis of the law has the right to overule a jury.

Just goes to show much judges resent having some of their power away by common law.

I would recommend you look up the basis of laws in the US
That way you wouldnt appear as ignorant. And I mean that dictionary definition wise , not as street slang. I wanted to verify that as well, just in case...

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Judges over the years, have likely gotten away with doing more than tampering with a jury, if you know what I mean.

The issue here is as follows, and I say this as a Christian man...

It does not matter a damn what God says in a court of law. What matters is what the law states, which is why it is imperative that law be written and refined to serve the ends of justice, rather than to serve the petty concerns of the legal profession and infrastructure in a country.

This judge overstepped the mark massively in trying to interject in this manner, in my estimation. Holding a religious belief is something all should be free to do. Inflicting them on a largely secular environment like a court room or a political process however, is absolutely unacceptable.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

If the evidence was enough to convict (it obviously was), he should have doubted the voice in his head. The sorry fact that he didn't casts a profound doubt over his capacity to be fair, reasonable and to work within the frameworks required by law.

It seems a straightforward case of standing down on mental health grounds. Alternatively, he continues in the belief that God speaks to him and supports pimping children out. The guy's an obvious idiot.

There seems to be more to the story apparently the aunt paid $ 6000.00 to have her niece brought here. She paid this 38 yr old man by the name of Julio Jimenez-Ramirez. Well they develop a relationship and the 15 yr old niece becomes pregnant. She runs away and moves in with Julio. The police find the run away in his apartment and arrests him. Upon arrest the niece showed a document that her aunt and Julio had signed saying he would pay back the $6000.00 and help take care of his child. For us this whole thing is shocking but in Honduras this would be a daily transaction. So its not as cut and dry as it sounds. If the judge thought the jury's decision was wrong and saw this as an attack on immigrants that could be the reason for his statement.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

So you care more about the Budas, her neice and the baby than you do about the judge?

No, I was checking out the case to see if the judge had ANY good reason for believing she was innocent other than the fact that God told him so, and I didn't find any.

originally posted by: Meldionne1
Who paid the judge off ?? ....also isn't there supose to be separation of state and religion ?..... Maybe the case made the judge want to order a pizza .

Yeah right. We haven't had a separation of church and state for 100 years at least.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Judges over the years, have likely gotten away with doing more than tampering with a jury, if you know what I mean.

The issue here is as follows, and I say this as a Christian man...

It does not matter a damn what God says in a court of law. What matters is what the law states, which is why it is imperative that law be written and refined to serve the ends of justice, rather than to serve the petty concerns of the legal profession and infrastructure in a country.

This judge overstepped the mark massively in trying to interject in this manner, in my estimation. Holding a religious belief is something all should be free to do. Inflicting them on a largely secular environment like a court room or a political process however, is absolutely unacceptable.

As a Christian man, do you believe the judge was talking to God?

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

This judge should have every single case he judged, reevaluated to see if there was any other injustices that he got away with.
Once a judge displays behaviour like this, they should be immediately removed from their position.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Fire that judge now.