The United States Constitution provides many protections to the American citizen. Among the many protections are the 'due process' clauses found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. These clauses protect a person from deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (University) The processes are set by state government and federal government in the form of laws. Who has jurisdiction over a case depends largely upon the laws that were violated. What happens when there is a procedural violation on the state level? To find out, we look at a case in which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded a lower appeals court's prior ruling. As we consider the case, we'll answer several questions: What was the …show more content…
State. It involved Ronald Wilson who called the police to report that he had found a man's body. A magazine clip was found near the body. Police officers suspected Wilson was involved, so they arrested him on unrelated warrants. (Volokh) During the interrogation, Wilson was presented with a falsified forensic report from Detective Roberts. The report stated that Wilson's fingerprints were found on the magazine clip, which prompted Wilson to confess. The trial court eventually sentenced him to to twenty-eight years in prison. Wilson appealed the ruling on the grounds that “the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the police violated the law to obtain his confession.” (Marion) The Fourth Court of Appeals who reviewed the decision and the procedures used agreed with Wilson. Their decision reversed and remanded the trial court's original ruling, but this was appealed by the state. The case was then taken to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals – the state's highest court involving criminal …show more content…
Four judges disagreed with the majority opinion and provided three dissenting opinions. First, Judge Meyers, J. filed a dissenting opinion on his own. He argued that no such penal code was violated by Detective Roberts because he believed Roberts could not be found guilty of violating the statute. Judge Meyers, J. would “reverse the court of appeals and affirm the trial court's judgment.” (Meyers 3) The second dissenting opinion was provided by Judge Hervey who was joined by Judge Keller and Judge Keasler. In his opinion, Judge Hervey states he would “decide that appellant's confession should not be suppressed under Article 38.23(a) because any violation of Section 37.09 by Roberts did not violate any of the appellant's personal rights.” (Hervey) He comes to this conclusion through a different interpretation of article 38.23 which he believes does not apply to Wilson. Judge Hervey would not suppress Wilson's confession and thus dissents. Judge Keasler provides the third dissenting opinion and is joined by Judge Keller and Judge Hervey. Judge Keasler also argues that the majority “erred in addressing Wilson's claim under Penal Code Section 37.09.” (Keasler) He would send back the case to the lower court of appeals so they could reconsider