A federal appeals court has tossed an Amarillo woman’s death sentence after it found that local prosecutors had failed to reveal that their primary trial witness was a paid informant.
With a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals last week sent Brittany Marlowe Holberg’s 1998 murder conviction back down to the trial court to decide how to proceed.
Holberg has been on death row for 27 years. In securing her conviction in 1998, Randall County prosecutors heavily relied on testimony from a jail inmate who was working as a confidential informant for the City of Amarillo police. That informant recanted her testimony in 2011, but neither a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals or a federal district court found that prosecutors had violated Holberg’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
The prosecutors will face no repercussions for destroying most of this woman’s life. I hope she sues the state and gets a fat check (at the expense of the taxpayers), but those scumbags should be the ones who have to pay.
Gimmy 5 bucks I’ll tell you everything Luigi did! I saw it all on reddit.
Nevermind I’m banned from reddit. But can I please just make stuff up? $5 bucks!
In a lone dissent, circuit judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Donald Trump appointee
shock
Looked up this story in the local paper for a bit more context
Responding officers found Towery in his home dead from multiple stab wounds. Part of a lamp was stuck in his throat.
Unsure how this happens in a self defense situation. Imo if you were threatened and under duress you’re gonna do what you have to do, but he was 80 years old
Fearing for her life and fueled by crack cocaine, she overcame Towery and stabbed him repeatedly – 58 times according to an autopsy report. The evidence showed Holberg also beat Towery with a claw hammer multiple times. “I lost it," Holberg told jurors.
The reasoning behind the Trump-appointed judge’s dissent:
“No jury in its right mind would believe that a 23-year-old cocaine-addled prostitute ‘defended’ herself against a frail old man by (1) stabbing him 58 times, (2) bludgeoning him with various objects including a steam iron, and (3) ramming a lamp base down his throat while he was still alive,” Duncan wrote.
In the surface that’s pretty reasonable, but the issue is the planted informant being encouraged to further incriminate the defendant:
However, the majority of the judges believed prosecutors heavily relied on Kirkpatrick’s testimony – particularly her description of how Holberg enjoyed killing Towery – to secure the conviction and during the punishment phase of the trial when they asked for the death sentence.
If the evidence was so good, why did the prosecution fabricate a witness? … Your explanation glosses over this key fact.
And also, people can protect themselves and later make crazy decisions. That is definitely possible. Likely, even, if they are on hard drugs. So the shocking evidence, well, it isn’t so easy to interpret. Which is why a jury has to deal with it, not that Trump judge, and not you and me.
That’s the thing. It does not and should not matter if she did the deed. Using corrupt means to convict her invalidates the entire process. And that’s because if they used corrupt means on her then they can use them on you. Prosecutors and police doing that are trying to usurp the role of the court.
That said SCOTUS will rule that she should be immediately executed in the most inhumane way possible.
It absolutely should matter if she did the deed, as that makes her a murderer, but I will concede that if they used corrupt means to convict her it does invalidate the whole process.
There is a very fine balance to be struck here that I don’t think I can do justice.
There is not a fine balance.
Innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution did not do a legal and lawful job of getting a conviction, so right now she’s innocent. In other words, if you’re trying to do reasoning based on “what if she’s a murderer”, then we already have that answer sitting in front of us.
That’s the basic premise of the legal system. Now, if you are some omniscient being, then you might be able to do other types of reasoning. But we aren’t, and we never will be, so we can’t.
In other words, there is no fine balance. The prosecution decided their case wasn’t good enough to be presented fairly, and they somehow got away with their evil actions for the past 27 years.
Ethically it certainly matters. But systems wise we cannot incentivize it. Which is why corrupt prosecutions are legally supposed to result in removing the conviction. She’s certainly not magically a good person. And iirc most states allow another trial.
I agree wholeheartedly. Even if the state doesn’t allow for a retrial, her conviction should be removed. Like you said it only matters ethically
There is not a fine balance.
Innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution did not do a legal and lawful job of getting a conviction, so right now she’s innocent. In other words, if you’re trying to do reasoning based on “what if she’s a murderer”, then we already have that answer sitting in front of us.
That’s the basic premise of the legal system. Now, if you are some omniscient being, then you might be able to do other types of reasoning. But we aren’t, and we never will be, so we can’t.
In other words, there is no fine balance. The prosecution decided their case wasn’t good enough to be presented fairly, and they somehow got away with their evil actions for the past 27 years.
This is why the death penalty or even prison sentences longer than a decade should be eliminated…
I agree that there shouldn’t be a death penalty. I also think that any life sentence should always have the opportunity for parole.
But some people need to be removed from society for the sake of the community. Releasing serial offenders just guarantees more victims.
There are plenty of countries with a 20 year max doing just fine. They usually have an exception for the criminally insane. Anyone else should be getting out at some point.
You mean like the Dutch who sent a convicted pedophile to the Olympics?
Edit: sorry getting a 12 year old drunk and raping her doesn’t make you a pedo according to The Dutch Olympic committee
Hey he got a sentence 3.5 years longer than Brock Turner. Don’t act like he would have been in prison for life in the US.
Brock Turner? The rapist Brock Turner? The same Brock Turner who goes by Allen Turner now because he kept getting called a rapist?
Allen Turner the rapist? Rapist, Allen Turner? Who used to go by “Brock Turner The Rapist”?
Yeah, that asshole.
I also think that any life sentence should always have the opportunity for parole.
Oh god, no. I’ve seen too many true crime shows to know that some people would go back to killing as soon as they get out.
You want to put school shooters out on the streets again after 10 years? Hard pass.
I don’t agree that they should be eliminated. They’re there for a reason.
The problem is the unreasonable system we have in place. There had been stories of evidence provided to the judge that simply got ignored that would’ve proven innocence and the prisoner got killed still. That isn’t the flaw with the penalty, it’s a flaw with the poor decision making of the judges and everyone involved in the system.
I don’t understand what about that people don’t get when they advocate against death penalties. Advocate for a better and thorough justice system.
There is no reason for the death penalty. It does not serve justice. It does not act as a deterrent. It does not save cost.
It would save money if we let the conservatives empower cops and judge and jury…
It would also be horrible and create shadow governments and insurgencies but it would be massively cheaper.
There is no reason to also keep wasting taxpayer dollars keeping murderers and worst criminals alive. People like you seem to be happy in doing that and actually believe they can be reformed. When, the large majority seems to disagree with you. You don’t have and never have had a solution to this. So what makes you think you’ve got a stance to abolish death penalties?
All that your kind seems to do is just waste people’s time with your runaround logic. It’s tiresome.
No, I’m done, I’m not going to hear more replies from people who I’ve exampled. There’s a reason things exist and you don’t want to accept that, fine, whatever. But you keep running around your own circular logic for all I care.
As all inmates have the right to a fair trial and every death penalty inmate appeals at every possible turn. This is 100% paid for by the taxpayer and makes executing people more expensive than housing them for their entire life. Any attempt to reduce this cost is met by an increase in likely unjust executions.
Your view is essentially “the death penalty exists so it is right” which is not a logically derived opinion. I don’t think you should talk about other people’s circular logic while avoiding recognizing your own.
You think true justice isn’t worth working toward? Better to kill people just to be safe, and if a few innocent people are murdered, well, it’s a small price to pay, right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States
Here’s a long list of reasons that you’re wrong.
Ah yes, they’re automatically the worst criminals.
You can release someone you’re holding prisoner. You can’t release someone from death.
What is the reason, exactly?
Abolishing the death penalty is not about costs or punishment. It’s about sparing the innocent a wrongful execution. As long as you advocate for the death penalty you are advocating for the murder of innocent people. No system is 100% accurate 100% of the time.
The ONLY way to be absolutely certain that we aren’t wrongfully executing people is to stop executions entirely.
Fuck are you on about, it costs more taxpayer dollars to execute someone and we fucking get it wrong all the time. Stop thinking with your feelings and get educated on something before you spout nonsense about it being “common sense” or whatever. It’s actually common sense to get rid of it!
Most sane kbin/mbin user.
That isn’t the flaw with the penalty, it’s a flaw with the poor decision making of the judges and everyone involved in the system.
That is the main flaw, all of this relies on people who cannot make correct decisions every time. That’s why the death penalty can never be implemented without killing innocent people. You cannot remove human bias from the justice system, it has to be managed.
I don’t agree that they should be eliminated. They’re there for a reason.
Prohibition was there for a reason. Witches were tried for a reason. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia for a reason.
Having a reason doesn’t make you right.
Or, not every reason is “good”.
It’s like things being legal. Being legal doesn’t make it right.
Put that on a t-shirt!
There should be no death penalty without a perfect justice system that always gets convictions right. Because that is impossible, the death penalty shouldn’t exist. Besides imo the justice system should be about rehabilitation, and the death penalty is the opposite to that approach.
I met a black man who was on death row for 14 years for the rape and murder of a white girl. The judge, prosecutor, and public defender all ignored evidence of her body being covered in strawberry blonde pubic hair which this man being black does not have. Thus he spent 14 years and was almost executed twice because everyone involved conspired to have him be convicted. Everyone involved got off scot free and no one faced any punishment for deciding to murder this guy because no one wanted to follow up on the evidence the police gathered.
I don’t know why anyone who considers themselves to be rational would support the death penalty when you know irrational and stupid people exist.
Well, but what if they plea guilty to raping and murdering a hundred kids?
10 year max?
Pleading guilty is not really an indicator of actual guilt in the American legal system.
Yeah I was gonna say, “define plead guilty”
So regardless, 10 year max?
Woah, that straw man came outta fuckin nowhere.
It isn’t that far from what some people have done. Perhaps reassessment every 5-10y but there are people in jail who do not and cannot fit in a civil society. Serial killers, child rapists, etc these people exist, you want to stick them in a mental institute instead fine but allowing them back into society isn’t wise.
I am fully aware and believe there are people who can no longer exist/function in society today, and they absolutely should be reassesed with massive amounts of therapy and everything to try and reintegrate them, but not released after some arbitrary deadline.
I was simply pointing out a straw man when I saw it.
Its not straw.
In the US, I think they do consecutive sentencing. So that’d be 10 years times 100 or 200 crimes
I think their point is 10 years max for every charge. Which, depending on the crime, could guarantee a lot of repeat offenders.
Good luck fixing some of them in 10 years…
Well, the prison system never really tries to fix anyone :(
deleted by creator
Yes
Sounds like a pretty good way to get people to say “I’m willing to risk a relatively small chunk of my life to kill someone forever.” I’m guessing you’ve never had anyone you know murdered for nothing?
Right, because the system occasionally gets things wrong and displays corruption, we should never ever sentence serial rapists and murders to anything more than 10 years in prison.
Fucking reactionary morons.
reactionary
of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reactionary
You seem to think that word means the opposite of what it means.
No, I’m using it properly. You’re just not used to hearing it used to criticize leftist positions, but it can be. I understand new things can be hard for some people though.
Reactionary means reverting to previous norms rather than “conserving” the status quo. Name a historical period where punishment of crime was less harsh than now. The death penalty used to be given for much less severe crimes, and enacted with a full complement of torture. People were given effective life sentences for minor infractions.
Please explain to me how said leftist positions are extreme conservative or rightism, or how being for political and social change (abolishing the death penalty) is opposing political and social change.
So Texas is going to execute her anyway, right? Or was that just Missouri?
Simple clerical error what’s 14 more years on death row?
Not really enough into to judge. Frail old man? What was their relationship? Eg. If he abused her as a child I’d say she’s been in there long enough.
The sick lunatic, Holberg, is the perfect congressional candidate for the Government of Putin.
I drive through or spend the night in Amarillo on occasion. Welp, when the gates of hell finally open, I have my idea where it’ll happen.
