Jump to content

Jeff Ross is a Narc


Ghost of LL

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Helobious
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“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.”

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...