Texas Governor Is Substituting His Judgment for the Jury’s
The sudden disdain we’re seeing among officeholders for the rulings of the courts for clearly partisan gain is stunning.
In Texas, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is working to set aside all normal legal procedures to pardon an army sergeant who was convicted Friday of killing a protester at a Black Lives Matter rally in 2020.
On its face, it is hard to digest Abbott’s claim that Daniel Perry, who was working as an Uber driver at the time he drove into a crowd of protesters and ended up shooting Garrett Foster, did so to “stand his ground” rather than murder. Governor Abbott’s argument that is that Perry – 70 miles from his base at Fort Hood – was within Texas law to use a gun to protect his home – in this case, his car.
For openers, the details are a little more complicated, and the Travis County jury that heard the case took two days to deliberate that the verdict was murder, not self-defense. By contrast, It took the governor only to hear the news before stepping in.
Outrage at what looks to be another match on the nation’s smoldering racial fires and culture wars aside, Abbott is part of the same Republican leadership insisting in Washington hearings that it is left-leaning government officials who are overstepping court lines to “weaponize” our justice systems against Donald Trump and a thousand January 6 protesters.
It also was yet another tragedy from the national disease of gun proliferation and the added accelerant of open-carry laws that make it much more difficult to separate good guys and bad guys.
Abbott, of course, is making himself available for the 2024 Republican presidential ticket, and it is impossible to separate his increasingly shrill Texas-only policies from a broader view of MAGA thinking.
From the Trial
Over an eight-day trial, The Austin Statesman-American said this jury heard that Perry, the army sergeant, was working as an Uber driver as the rally, like many nationwide, formed in protest after the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Perry turned into the street where the Black Lives Matter crowd was marching and stopped only at a barricade. Several protesters acknowledged that they approached the car, fearing a repeat of a car-slams-crowd incident as had occurred in Charlottesville, Va.
Those protesters included the victim, Foster, who was carrying an AK-47 style rifle. There was contradictory testimony about whether Foster raised the rifle, but Perry shot the gun he was carrying. The prosecutors said it was murder; Perry’s lawyers said it was a case of self-defense. There was no video or photos presented at trial that showed the position of Foster’s rifle when he was shot.
There was testimony about Perry’s posts on social media that showed he had very strong feelings against protesters. In the posts, he said that people could get away with shooting protesters in Texas. The prosecutor in the case said Perry was angry when he turned into the crowd because a woman, he wanted to meet up with, was texting him asking for money, and that Perry could have simply left the demonstration.
Though the jury also found Perry guilty of murdering Foster, it found him not guilty of an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in connection to driving in front of another protester. The defense said Perry had no choice but to shoot Foster for self-protection.
Interference from the Governor
The question here is not about the case or the jury decision. That’s the point of trials to decide on how the facts square with the law as explained by judges and argued by lawyers.
Rather the question is about the inappropriateness of a governor essentially wiping away even the usual procedures involving pardons or clemency, a review process that may involve defendant regret or corrections behavioral reviews. Under federal rules, a pardon is available only after five years of incarceration.
Texas’ pardon process starts with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. The board can submit a pardon recommendation to the governor, who then can approve the pardon. In this case, Abbott said he requested the board request a pardon for Perry and “instructed the Board to expedite its review.”
In other words, the governor is substituting his judgment for the jury’s. He is stepping on the court. He is ignoring the testimony and evidence, and he is substituting his personal insistence on the primacy of “stand your ground” thinking. On its face, then, this is way out of line – almost without regard for individual justice or state gun policies.
But it is also a violation of context — over and over now the mark of our times. It is impossible not to see that this case will have racial overtones, ironic since both defendant and victim were White, though Foster’s girlfriend is Black and wheelchair-bound. It is impossible not to recognize that at the same time we’re talking about mass shootings (at least four killed just yesterday in Louisville) and the still proliferating guns despite continuing public polling for more gun safety rules. It is impossible not to see this case as an extension of partisan politics over common sense, propriety, or justice.
If there is something objectionable about this jury verdict, there are court appeals or other procedures that can apply.
What we don’t need is another Republican governor deciding cases himself. Gee, that would be weaponizing justice for selective political prosecution.
IF YOU ENJOY TERRY’S OPINION PIECES, PLEASE CONSIDER MAKING A TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION TODAY
