Evidence of judge's 'poisonous antisemitism' entitles Jewish death row inmate to new trial, top Texas court says
The top criminal court in Texas has ordered a new trial for a death row inmate because of evidence that the judge was actually biased against the defendant because he is Jewish. (Image from Shutterstock)
The top criminal court in Texas has ordered a new trial for a death row inmate because of evidence that the judge was actually biased against the defendant because he is Jewish.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a new trial to Randy Ethan Halprin in a 6-3 decision Nov. 6.
Halprin was one of the “Texas Seven” who escaped from prison in December 2000. During a robbery on Christmas Eve 2000, the group killed a police officer. Halprin said he wasn’t the triggerman, but he was found criminally responsible under Texas’ law of parties, which holds conspirators liable for the actions of other conspirators.
Texas Judge Vickers Cunningham presided over Halprin’s jury trial. Halprin was convicted and sentenced to death in 2003.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said Halprin was entitled to a new trial based on its independent review of Halprin’s evidence.
“The uncontradicted evidence supports a finding that Cunningham formed an opinion about Halprin that derived from an extrajudicial factor—Cunningham’s poisonous antisemitism,” the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded.
The appeals court cited evidence that Cunningham:
• Has in the past used derogatory language regarding Jewish people he knows. He also repeated antisemitic narratives, such as the idea that Jewish people have all the money and run the banking system.
• Has used a slur for Jewish people and used derogatory language, such as “filthy Jews” and “f- - -ing Jew.”
• When he learned that he would preside in the trial of five members of the Texas Seven, said he was going to get them all the death penalty. All five were convicted and sentenced to death.
• Was aware of Halprin’s Jewish faith. After the trial, he made antisemitic remarks about Halprin in particular and Jewish people in general.
• Created an irrevocable living trust for his children in 2010 that rewarded them “only if they married a white Christian person of the opposite sex.”
• Disapproved of his daughter’s Jewish boyfriend and referred to the man using an antisemitic phrase after the couple broke up.
Three dissenters argued that Halprin isn’t entitled to a new trial because there is no evidence that Cunningham’s views influenced how he conducted the proceedings. One of Halprin’s lawyers and a bailiff testified that they never saw signs of bias by Cunningham in the courtroom.
The dissent also cited testimony by a Jewish lawyer who was a close friend of Cunningham’s. The lawyer said Cunningham didn’t have antisemitic views, and he wouldn’t be friends with the judge if it was true. Cunningham participated in Passover services at the lawyer’s house and wore a yarmulke at the bat mitzvahs of the lawyer’s two daughters.
The Associated Press covered the opinion and published a statement by Tivon Schardl, one of Halprin’s lawyers.
“The Court of Criminal Appeals took a step towards broader trust in the criminal law by throwing out a hopelessly tainted death judgment,” Schardl said. “It also reminded Texans that religious bigotry has no place in our courts.”
Cunningham left the bench in 2005 and is currently in private practice, according to the AP. His office told the wire service that he had no comment. He did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email sent to his law office seeking comment.
Cunningham previously denied allegations of bias.
