As relates to Guyger, you are correct that it is not apt to be raised unless they are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the appellate court.
Even if she decided to make an issue of it (which is highly unlikely since Guyger seemed to invite it, if anything), it's still not likely to go anywhere for two reasons. First, it would be very hard to make the case that Judge Kemp was a state actor at the time because this wasn't part of the case. It wasn't part of a ruling or order of any kind and didn't happen as part of the proceeding, so any kind of First Amendment/separation of church and state issue likely isn't going anywhere.
Second, for Guyger to make it part of her appeal without raising the First Amendment angle, she'd have to show that she was harmed in the case. Well, since both the guilty verdict and sentencing had already been handed down, she'd have a pretty hard time showing harm.
BUT...now that this has happened, what happens when the Nation of Islam defendant is in front of the Court?
It depends on how she handles the Nation of Islam defendants. She has been on the bench since 2014, so I'm sure she has presided over cases with Muslim and certainly plenty of non-Christian defendants. Being a professed Christian doesn't mean that person can't be impartial toward and Islamic defendant just like being a professed Muslim doesn't mean one can't be impartial toward a Christian defendant.
It is not just THIS case that has the prospect of having an issue but every case going forward if the judge has any tendency to do this on a regular basis. I don't know the judge and don't keep up with Dallas County cases other than those that involve a client where we have been contacted in some manner.
I doubt that she does this on every case. If she did, she'd have a reputation for it. I think she saw this is as a unique matter.
In this day and age, you just never know what forms the basis for an appeal that the 5th Court of Appeals at Dallas or the Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin might grant relief upon.
The Fifth Court of Appeals just got taken over by a bunch of woke liberals. Well, they don't even believe in the supremacy of the written law, so who the hell knows what they will do on any case? However, I doubt they'd do anything just because of the political blow back they'd take for crapping on a black Democratic judge for doing something that probably has 95 percent support by the public. And the Court of Criminal Appeals is still run by Republicans. They won't give a flip.
All I harken back to is the events that led to the change in civil commitment proceedings...ALL of those used to be in Montgomery County until the judge on the bench had a video show up from a fundraising event where he spoke very negatively about sex offenders. Recusal filings were then made in EVERY case that followed the video coming to light. The next Session saw the law change and those cases were now to be considered in the County where the underlying sex offenses had occurred. Thus, seemingly innocuous events CAN have rippling repercussions. Time will tell if this was a common event in that Court or whether this was an effort to mitigate protest potential...
Oh mb, did you really make that comparison? Judge Kemp handed one defendant a Bible after she was sentenced. During the actual trial and in all other dealings she has had with the public, she was nothing but fair, impartial, and professional.
Seiler (who was stupidly appointed by our jackass, Aggie governor-for-life) ran a first-rate
**** show. There was nothing innocuous about his conduct. He was very clearly partial based on his public comments and flagrantly took that partiality into the courtroom, and he was a smack-talking ******* in the courtroom (and yes, there is an anti-******* rule in the Code of Judicial Conduct). He berated (for BS reasons) defense counsels in the presence of the jury. He even instructed one counsel that she could only file objections in writing. Can you imagine? If something can clearly be anticipated, of course, one should file objections in writing, but crap happens in courtrooms all the time that needs to be verbally objected to. If one side can't do that, that's an enormous detriment on that party. And he was a friggin' crook. The dude illegally took juror information from the courthouse and used it to send campaign mailers. He's lucky he's not in the slammer.
I'm just not seeing a lot of similarities between Seiler and Kemp.
