01-02-2014, 12:35 PM
Barrett's lawyer to challenge "hate crime" constitutionality; seeks to have client charged at the state level
George Parnham, a lawyer for Barrett, said in an interview that he planned to challenge the constitutionality of the hate crimes statute. He said it was "absolutely" inappropriate for the feds to get involved in this case, and that this type of alleged assault should have been charged under existing Texas law. His client could face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 if convicted on the federal level.
=============================================
Did some quick research; Texas did pass state "hate crime" laws in 2001, but only 10 defendants have been charged with a hate crime in over a decade in Texas, and only one case has gone to jury. Other states have prosecuted many more under state hate crime laws, but still it's uncommon.
Determining that a crime was committed based on bias or hate towards the victim-type is very difficult without tangible proof (few defendants record statements like Barrett did or like Neo-nazis have in the past).
I get the feeling Texas LE would have charged Barrett with "assault" without the "hate crime" designation at the local level, but the feds intervened and kicked it up. JMO on that.
Ref: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/speci...ect/nRjsf/
George Parnham, a lawyer for Barrett, said in an interview that he planned to challenge the constitutionality of the hate crimes statute. He said it was "absolutely" inappropriate for the feds to get involved in this case, and that this type of alleged assault should have been charged under existing Texas law. His client could face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 if convicted on the federal level.
=============================================
Did some quick research; Texas did pass state "hate crime" laws in 2001, but only 10 defendants have been charged with a hate crime in over a decade in Texas, and only one case has gone to jury. Other states have prosecuted many more under state hate crime laws, but still it's uncommon.
Determining that a crime was committed based on bias or hate towards the victim-type is very difficult without tangible proof (few defendants record statements like Barrett did or like Neo-nazis have in the past).
I get the feeling Texas LE would have charged Barrett with "assault" without the "hate crime" designation at the local level, but the feds intervened and kicked it up. JMO on that.
Ref: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/speci...ect/nRjsf/