Jeff Ross is a Narc

[Ghost of LL 15545]

In a cert petition filed today in the Supreme Court, well--I'll just let the Introduction speak for itself:

And I have so many questions.

1) Who in the fuck in Brazos County thought it was a good idea to hire Jeff Ross to come in and roast inmates?

2) And what--did the inmates then roast one another?  Or did they try to kill Jeff Ross?

3) And who the fuck paid Jeff Ross . . .  and why . . . and how much . . . and what the everliving fuck?

 

For those curious, the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision is here.  The defendant is a bad guy.  But it's a real interesting question as to whether Jeff Ross was acting as a state actor who conducted a custodial interrogation while filming a Comedy Central special.

[Nivek 16994]

In a cert petition filed today in the Supreme Court, well--I'll just let the Introduction speak for itself:
[/url] And I have so many questions.
1) Who in the fuck in Brazos County thought it was a good idea to hire Jeff Ross to come in and roast inmates?
2) And what--did the inmates then roast one another?  Or did they try to kill Jeff Ross?
3) And who the fuck paid Jeff Ross . . .  and why . . . and how much . . . and what the everliving fuck?
 
For those curious, the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision is here.  The defendant is a bad guy.  But it's a real interesting question as to whether Jeff Ross was acting as a state actor who conducted a custodial interrogation while filming a Comedy Central special.

Yeah, lawyers!

[CooterBrown 18034]

[52-80 19271]

Inmate shouldve asked jeff “are you a comedian? Because if you are you have  to tell me”

[Helobious 9467]

I remember watching that special a few years ago. It was pretty funny. He did a roast show but he also went into the jail before that and interacted with the inmates, one on one and in small groups. This interview in question was filmed but not aired. Guy in question was an 18 year old high school senior when he committed the murders. 
 

And I’d like to file a motion have sex with McKenzie Edwards 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Helobious

[Scheiss Meister 8414]

31 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

In a cert petition filed today in the Supreme Court, well--I'll just let the Introduction speak for itself:

And I have so many questions.

1) Who in the fuck in Brazos County thought it was a good idea to hire Jeff Ross to come in and roast inmates?

2) And what--did the inmates then roast one another?  Or did they try to kill Jeff Ross?

3) And who the fuck paid Jeff Ross . . .  and why . . . and how much . . . and what the everliving fuck?

 

For those curious, the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision is here.  The defendant is a bad guy.  But it's a real interesting question as to whether Jeff Ross was acting as a state actor who conducted a custodial interrogation while filming a Comedy Central special.

Bolded and underlined.  It's the home of aggy.  Damn near everyone involved in county government is aggy.  Why would you expect professional behavior?  

[RPM 26366]

1 minute ago, Helobious said:

I remember watching that special a few years ago. It was pretty funny. He did a roast show but he also went into the jail before that and interacted with the inmates, one on one and in small groups. This interview in question was filmed but not aired. Guy in question was an 18 year old high school senior when he committed the murders. 
 

And I’d like to file a motion have sex with McKenzie Edwards 

Same. But I did question WTF Jeff Ross was doing entertaining prisoners. He ain't Johnny Cash singing songs, he an insult comic. Bold strategy.

[Mittens 8312]

 

[Post Oak 20295]

Oh she is sassy and not here for Ted's bullshit.

 

 

 

 

[Bigbend1812 12942]

[blacklab 11957]

Best part of the appeal

Quote

Appellant depicted life in the Hall household as being marked by constant beratement and psychological abuse, mostly coming from his adoptive mother, Karen

 

[Celery Man 21004]

Worst roast of a Texas prisoner since 1964

Edited December 28, 2022 by Celery Man

[ztejas 43549]

1 hour ago, Post Oak said:

Oh she is sassy and not here for Ted's bullshit.

 

 

 

 

So sassy she can't type the right word?

[Dahobbs 17703]

39 minutes ago, ztejas said:

So sassy she can't type the right word?

That had to be an auto complete by her phone and/or Twitter, since, you know, she actually did type the right word. It is the extra word after it that creates the problem. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Dahobbs

[DaggerHorns 3102]

“Hey uh, Gabe, one small piece of advice here. Don’t talk about your case details and/or any other charges that have been brought against you with anyone other than me (your attorney)….

…..also , say for example a comedian films some sort of special in jail. Don’t mention anything that may involuntary incriminate yourself or anyone else.”

[Ghost of LL 15545]

4 minutes ago, DaggerHorns said:

“Hey uh, Gabe, one small piece of advice here. Don’t talk about your case details and/or any other charges that have been brought against you with anyone other than me (your attorney)….

…..also , say for example a comedian films some sort of special in jail. Don’t mention anything that may involuntary incriminate yourself or anyone else.”

By the way, if you read the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision, it's apparent his adoptive father is a goddamned moron.  

Wes Hall is an old (I think he's in his 70s now) wills & estates lawyer in College Station.  He's obviously of a generation of old white guys who think the cops are there to protect you.  So when they asked him if he would step out of the room while they talked to his adoptive son alone, . . . he fucking did.  Whereupon the cops quickly extracted a confession.

That's just fucking amazing that any lawyer would do something like that.

[Chopper 17296]

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

Worst roast of a Texas prisoner since 1964

[JesusSweatDuck 17814]

42 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

By the way, if you read the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision, it's apparent his adoptive father is a goddamned moron.  

Wes Hall is an old (I think he's in his 70s now) wills & estates lawyer in College Station.  He's obviously of a generation of old white guys who think the cops are there to protect you.  So when they asked him if he would step out of the room while they talked to his adoptive son alone, . . . he fucking did.  Whereupon the cops quickly extracted a confession.

That's just fucking amazing that any lawyer would do something like that.

or maybe he knew his adoptive son was a psychopath and also an idiot

[Dahobbs 17703]

6 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

In a cert petition filed today in the Supreme Court, well--I'll just let the Introduction speak for itself:

And I have so many questions.

1) Who in the fuck in Brazos County thought it was a good idea to hire Jeff Ross to come in and roast inmates?

2) And what--did the inmates then roast one another?  Or did they try to kill Jeff Ross?

3) And who the fuck paid Jeff Ross . . .  and why . . . and how much . . . and what the everliving fuck?

 

For those curious, the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision is here.  The defendant is a bad guy.  But it's a real interesting question as to whether Jeff Ross was acting as a state actor who conducted a custodial interrogation while filming a Comedy Central special.

Does the fact that the video was only used in the punishment phase and not the guilt phase have any significance? And, on the criminal side, how does harmless error analysis play into this? Because, I could certainly see in a civil case this admittance of this video, if in error, to be harmless given the other evidence presented. At least based on the Court of Criminal Appeals' description of the video, it seems pretty fucking tame in comparison to the live testimony from other inmates (e.g., appellant sounded aroused when talking about the murders, the murders were practice for his eventual killing of his foster parents, he intentionally dulled the knife to cause more pain, appellant had a hit list of people he wanted to kill, etc.). 

As to who paid Jeff Ross, it sounds like just Comedy Central. Apparently the jail was only compensated for the additional guards and expenses it incurred because of filming the special, but was not paid for the right to film.

Based on the facts as presented in the opinion (N.B. I've seen many appellate decisions that completely misrepresent what happened in the trial court), I don't think the state agent theory is especially strong. Maybe the jail should have an obligation to notify the lawyers if something like that is going to take place. But I don't find the argument, in this instance, Ross was acting as an ostensible agent of the state very convincing. 

[Ghost of LL 15545]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Does the fact that the video was only used in the punishment phase and not the guilt phase have any significance? And, on the criminal side, how does harmless error analysis play into this? Because, I could certainly see in a civil case this admittance of this video, if in error, to be harmless given the other evidence presented. At least based on the Court of Criminal Appeals' description of the video, it seems pretty fucking tame in comparison to the live testimony from other inmates (e.g., appellant sounded aroused when talking about the murders, the murders were practice for his eventual killing of his foster parents, he intentionally dulled the knife to cause more pain, appellant had a hit list of people he wanted to kill, etc.). 

As to who paid Jeff Ross, it sounds like just Comedy Central. Apparently the jail was only compensated for the additional guards and expenses it incurred because of filming the special, but was not paid for the right to film.

Based on the facts as presented in the opinion (N.B. I've seen many appellate decisions that completely misrepresent what happened in the trial court), I don't think the state agent theory is especially strong. Maybe the jail should have an obligation to notify the lawyers if something like that is going to take place. But I don't find the argument, in this instance, Ross was acting as an ostensible agent of the state very convincing. 

You're D.A. Hobbs--you learn me on the finer points of criminal appellate review.

I would agree that on the guilt/innocence phase, this would be harmless error.  I just don't know how that works in the punishment phase.  If I were defense counsel, I'd argue that punishment is a cumulation of evidence, and so how can one know which particular straw broke this particular camel's back?

But I have no idea whether that would be a persuasive argument.

[SquishMitten 10447]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Does the fact that the video was only used in the punishment phase and not the guilt phase have any significance? And, on the criminal side, how does harmless error analysis play into this? Because, I could certainly see in a civil case this admittance of this video, if in error, to be harmless given the other evidence presented. At least based on the Court of Criminal Appeals' description of the video, it seems pretty fucking tame in comparison to the live testimony from other inmates (e.g., appellant sounded aroused when talking about the murders, the murders were practice for his eventual killing of his foster parents, he intentionally dulled the knife to cause more pain, appellant had a hit list of people he wanted to kill, etc.). 

As to who paid Jeff Ross, it sounds like just Comedy Central. Apparently the jail was only compensated for the additional guards and expenses it incurred because of filming the special, but was not paid for the right to film.

Based on the facts as presented in the opinion (N.B. I've seen many appellate decisions that completely misrepresent what happened in the trial court), I don't think the state agent theory is especially strong. Maybe the jail should have an obligation to notify the lawyers if something like that is going to take place. But I don't find the argument, in this instance, Ross was acting as an ostensible agent of the state very convincing. 

That's my interpretation from skimming through it. But it does seem to open the door for future abuse. Bring in someone popular that an inmate might open up to and see what shakes out. The state can keep their hands completely out of it then get footage from the film crew afterwards in the routine course of gathering potential evidence. Also, it seems like there was quite a bit of other evidence. The film footage may have just been ancillary. And being on a jury, I would probably tend to give less weight to things someone said in the company of a comedian when they could reasonably be assumed to play up their role in any given situation.

[Dahobbs 17703]

19 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

That's my interpretation from skimming through it. But it does seem to open the door for future abuse. Bring in someone popular that an inmate might open up to and see what shakes out. The state can keep their hands completely out of it then get footage from the film crew afterwards in the routine course of gathering potential evidence. Also, it seems like there was quite a bit of other evidence. The film footage may have just been ancillary. And being on a jury, I would probably tend to give less weight to things someone said in the company of a comedian when they could reasonably be assumed to play up their role in any given situation.

Yeah, with slightly different facts I may lean the other way. I just think this particular case is a poor avenue to address the issue. Bad cases make bad law sort of situation. 

[TwiceHorn 31585]

I think, but I could be wrong, that in the sentencing phase, the rules of character evidence tend to be more or less out the window, as that is the key if not sole issue of concern. 

This kind of evidence strikes me as character-ish evidence that certainly should not be admitted at gulit trial, but could be in the punishment phase, as guilt is already determined, so there's little chance of it being improperly used for that purpose, which is kind of the main concern with character evidence.

It seems to me, though, that violation of the no-contact order should probably bar its admission under any circumstances.

[PRONG HORN 3162]

9 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

1) Who in the fuck in Brazos County thought it was a good idea to hire Jeff Ross to come in and roast inmates?

 

A genius.

 

 

[billfromlaketravis 11544]

9 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

In a cert petition filed today in the Supreme Court, well--I'll just let the Introduction speak for itself:

And I have so many questions.

1) Who in the fuck in Brazos County thought it was a good idea to hire Jeff Ross to come in and roast inmates?

2) And what--did the inmates then roast one another?  Or did they try to kill Jeff Ross?

3) And who the fuck paid Jeff Ross . . .  and why . . . and how much . . . and what the everliving fuck?

 

For those curious, the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision is here.  The defendant is a bad guy.  But it's a real interesting question as to whether Jeff Ross was acting as a state actor who conducted a custodial interrogation while filming a Comedy Central special.

You had me at Brazos County. 

[Hermanator 7183]

I liked that special. Was a strange scene. 

No way Ross was paid extra to get some idiot to incriminate himself right

[chainsaw 9878]

How can they prove that the Jeff Ross video was the reason why the jury picked a death penalty?

[Dahobbs 17703]

7 hours ago, chainsaw said:

How can they prove that the Jeff Ross video was the reason why the jury picked a death penalty?

That isn't the standard.

[chainsaw 9878]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

That isn't the standard.

What is then