Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

"Racehorse Haynes"

42 Comments -

1 – 42 of 42
Anonymous dearieme said...

" ..going for the death penalty in cases of witness-murdering might deter a few witness-murders. (But I've seldom heard anybody else say anything like this": it was a favourite argument of my father's. He similarly argued that there should never be a death penalty for anything less than murder, except perhaps treason (which you might reasonably assume leads to death).

7/7/11, 3:32 AM

Anonymous dearieme said...

'"I said to Racehorse in 1979, "Gee, you really pointed out some weaknesses in DNA evidence."'

Are you sure? DNA finger-printing was invented later than that - there's a chapter devoted to it in Jim Watson's book on DNA. After some rather pathetic pandering to American prejudices, Watson then criticises American courts for being slow to accept DNA finger-printing evidence, and generalises to "..it may be hard to appreciate how hard it was for the American legal system to swallow DNA." Has he overlooked your Houston case (albeit that it must have been pre-finger-printing)?

7/7/11, 3:56 AM

Anonymous Brett Stevens said...

Juries and voters are both comprised of people who are told to react to something.

Their mode of thought is to put themselves into the position of victim.

If you transfer that victim-identification from the actual victim to the "innocent" killer, they seem to give it up rapidly.

The OJ Simpson case comes to mind. Unlike Casey Anthony's case, the evidence was good on OJ. Yet it was too politicized to touch, so he walked (to dubious benefit).

7/7/11, 4:31 AM

Blogger Gc said...

"Since Racehorse's fame rested on his getting obviously guilty people off, I had assumed that he would have, all else being equal, wanted phonies on his jury, so I was surprised by his phony juror aversion."

If his tactics was to manipulate the jury to not to care about the law, he didn`t wan`t people in the jury who have an urge to prove their intelligence.

7/7/11, 4:46 AM

Anonymous Chicago said...

Sounds as if the lawyers are even more sociopathic than their customers. The judges can't be any great shakes either, seeing as the two professions people least trust are politicians and lawyers, and judges are usually a combination of both.

7/7/11, 5:18 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

OT:

Hey Steve, your suggestion for quick rebuilding time came true in Sweden:

PowerPoint ban: Swiss political party wants to outlaw the software

7/7/11, 5:40 AM

Anonymous jd said...

"A general, widely-advertised policy of always going for the death penalty in cases of witness-murdering might deter a few witness-murders.'

Actually, there have been arguments that the death penalty encourages witness murdering because if a criminal is going to face execution for one murder, they have strong incentive to kill those who saw it. (I'm still for the death penalty regardless).

7/7/11, 5:50 AM

Blogger rightsaidfred said...

America likes to think defendants are innocent the way we think immigrants are hard working, and minorities are oppressed and will rise up and succeed if we just get the boot off their neck.

In reality, not so much, but the importance of myth is pretty profound.

7/7/11, 6:02 AM

Anonymous Dahlia said...

Fascinating. You've talked about Haynes before, but I can't get enough of this stuff.

Defenders have a financial motive so they're almost always a step ahead of the prosecutor in psy-ops and intelligence. Lose too many cases and he goes down a pay grade, but is up against greener, less willing or able, prosecutors.

Ignore the media: there is nothing wrong with questioning this outcome and trying to learn from it in order to even out the scales more in favor of justice for the victims. When a juror thinks an obvious murderess was a good mom, something went horribly wrong.

7/7/11, 6:09 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

whoa Steve, did you really work for a guy like this?

Everyday you write one or two interesting articles and this is the first time I've read about Racehorse Haynes?

Looking forward to showing my girlfriend your article, reads like fiction.

7/7/11, 6:15 AM

Anonymous ben tillman said...

One of Cullen's sons is a friend of mine. Surprisingly, he's a really nice guy and was pretty easygoing about his own divorce.

7/7/11, 6:18 AM

Anonymous Shawn said...

Interesting read.

I'll add that Davis not only allegedly tried to hire a hit man to murder the judge, but also to murder Priscilla, the estranged wife.

7/7/11, 7:15 AM

Anonymous Nanonymous said...

Yes, DNA evidence from collected hair in 1979 sounds a bit off. Restriction polymorphism as an analytical method dates to the late 1970s but that was before PCR and I doubt hairs would yield enough DNA to run anything RFLP-like.

7/7/11, 7:45 AM

Anonymous Leonard said...

For some reason, Americans don't really seem to think much about witness-murdering as something that ought to be deterred. It just doesn't come up much in arguments over the death penalty.

Of course witness-murdering is deterred: it's murder after all. But yeah: what you're saying is Americans don't prioritize deterring witness murdering above and beyond vanilla murder.

Seems to me a part of the reason is that sort of economical thinking is beyond most people. People don't think in terms of homo economicus; they think in terms of received morality and our innate sense of justice. Eye for an eye.

But beyond that, even for those who are receptive to the economical analysis of justice, I don't think for our particular circumstance reserving death for witness murdering is a good idea. Only a few murderers will be deterred by it: they need to be coldly rational enough to weigh the expected consequences of various crime-plans, but not so rational that they don't engage in crime to begin with.

Reserving the death penalty for witness-murder is thus a tradeoff between deterring all murderers somewhat more (the delta between their preference for life in prison vs death), and a small class of murderers somewhat more. Personally, I think that in a society full of low-IQ low-impulse control murderers, we should focus on deterring them the most. This is going to cost us some murdered witnesses at the margin, but that's a trade that's worth culling some bad genes and bad apples from the main herd.

7/7/11, 7:49 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I remember vividly a single
element from an interview Dick Cavette did with Haynes. Asked if there were problems defending a client in criminal court that he knew was guilty, Haynes simply responded that what was relevant was the evidence to be set forth by the State and that he, Haynes, always merely asked his defendant: "Please advise me of what evidence or testimony you think might be set forth by the State." The floridly pedestrian lawyers that make up the greater part of the local attorneys where I live who are taking a lot of criminal defense business are still asking their clients, as they day when they first started practicing law: "Tell me exactly what happened" I have distant distant social contact with two professional cons who will not say another word to such a "lawyer" whenever they are facing a prelim hearing. The $alient thing about the American $ystem of Ju$tice is that it takes care of its own.

7/7/11, 8:18 AM

Anonymous Kylie said...

"Many decades ago, when I was in high school, I came up with the idea that you should generally trust jury decisions to be right. It seemed like a good idea at the time. But, then I met Racehorse Haynes."

My epiphany was less spectacular. Many decades ago, when I was in high school, I came up with the idea that you should generally trust jury decisions to be right. It seemed like a good idea at the time. But, then I researched the National Forensic League's policy debate topic for 1971-72: Resolved: That the jury system in the United States should be significantly changed.

I saw an interview with Racehorse Haynes. In a universe composed soley of circles, that man could find an angle. A nimble, not to say devious, intelligence.

As for the high-profile case you mentioned without using names, I instantly recognized one of my favorite true crime stories, the murders of Joan Robinson Hill and, subsequently, her husband, Dr. John Hill. The book on this case, Blood and Money by Tommy Thompson is just riveting. The twists and turns of this murder mystery could only happen in Texas. Or maybe I'm saying that because I juse finished another riveting murder mystery that happened in Texas, the Joy Aylor case. In both cases, there's little doubt about the killer's identity, it's the web of deceit that stretches out over all strata of society and covers an amazing range of colorful characters that's so fascinating.

7/7/11, 8:25 AM

Anonymous Not My Peers said...

I've also heard that cases are won or lost at the jury selection/Voir Dire step - the rest is theatrics.

Knew of a psychologist who wrote one of the top legal textbooks on profiling jury candidates. He traveled all over the country consulting lawyers.

This is a niche industry from both the psychology and legal viewpoints

7/7/11, 10:00 AM

Anonymous slumber_j said...

HBD angle on Texas Justice: Locklear is part Lumbee.

7/7/11, 10:35 AM

Anonymous alonzo portfolio said...

I echo Diarieme. Steve, I played on an all-prosecutor softball team (I was the ringer) in 1984 in a county famous for its aggressive LE, and I never heard a single mention of DNA by anyone. I think you'd have to get to at least 1988 before it was ever used in a criminal prosecution.

7/7/11, 11:17 AM

Anonymous ben tillman said...

Hey Steve, your suggestion for quick rebuilding time came true in Sweden:

PowerPoint ban: Swiss political party wants to outlaw the software


Sweden?

7/7/11, 11:49 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The part where you prove some other system is better must have got cut off.

Please add it back in the edit.

7/7/11, 12:16 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When I was in college, I once had a part time job working for the top defense attorney in Houston, Richard "Racehorse" Haynes."

Why did you work for such an evil sleazebag. Suppose Matthew Yglesias had worked for some lawyer who got a whole bunch of black or illegal murderers off the hook for killing innocent people.
I hope you finally had had enough and spat in Haynes's eye.

7/7/11, 12:34 PM

Anonymous Reg Cæsar said...

So, why was he "Racehorse"? Was this some kind of urinary reference?

7/7/11, 12:42 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

“For some reason,” Haynes continues, “cats don’t apply.”

Because cats all have it coming.

Svigor

7/7/11, 12:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Classic MacGrub.... Errr Sailer

People should be ashamed if they're not donating some cash a least once a year to this site

Dan in DC

7/7/11, 12:55 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exclusion of phonies with too many pencils makes sense if Haynes was trying to assemble a jury that resembled "cowboy values" texans shooting the shit during a break between brandings, at the diner, or what have you. Haynes would project, largely naturally, an internalization of the culture and values that, being recognized, would admit him into the confidence of the circle, and from there it would simply be a matter of persuading the jury (however unreasonably) that folksy common sense required a favorable verdict.

When several "cowboy values" Texans scratch their heads over a complicated mess, it's easy to imagine the group siezing on a common sense angle as a way out, especially if suggested by a leadership personality within the group. An insecure phony might have ego issues which could upset the group bond (based on unassuming personalities and shared values), Haynes leadership of the group, and (by setting an example of independent thought) the presumption of "group-think with a common sense angle".

7/7/11, 1:11 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lawyers are unbelievable. They can cause you to reasonably doubt gravity.

7/7/11, 1:13 PM

Anonymous ben tillman said...

So, why was he "Racehorse"? Was this some kind of urinary reference?

It's from his high school football coach. As a ball carrier, he used to race out of bounds instead of taking contact downfield.

7/7/11, 1:24 PM

Anonymous jody said...

interesting stuff.

7/7/11, 1:36 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great read. I owe Haynes the biggest win of my career, involving a prisoner's failed escape attempt. I told Haynes the story. He told me I couldn't lose. He was right. The jury awarded millions to a man who stabbed a guard trying to escape from prison. I sued the guards for slapping the prisoner around after he surrendered.

7/7/11, 2:12 PM

Blogger Karen said...

I was a kid in a small town near Dallas when the Davis trials were the highlights of the local news. Those trials inspired lots of us, me included, to go to law school so we could bag our own T. Cullen Davis. I grew up, became a lawyer in a highly technical and completely non-sexy field of regulatory law, but I did meet one of Haynes' former associates. Said associate claimed that Davis looked like such an idiot that the jury didn't believe he was smart enough to carry out the murders. Also, Davis lost virtually all of his money and disappeared from public life. "The mills of the gods grind slowly . . . "

7/7/11, 3:44 PM

Anonymous poultry inspector said...

Cullen Davis is related to three of the greatest American inventors: Samuel Morse, Eli Whitney and Charles Goodyear.

7/7/11, 4:35 PM

Anonymous Johnny Caustic said...

"His own stepdaughter" is an oxymoron. From Cullen's point of view, killing her was probably a bonus.

7/7/11, 5:40 PM

Anonymous Mac said...

Steve is right on about capital punishment and witness-killing. The Brit journalist Peter Hitchens covers this in his book A Brief History of Crime. Before the UK fired the hangmen for good in the 1960s, there was a period of time c. 1947 or '48 where executions were suspended due to opposition to the practice. During this period, witness murders and robberies that turned into killings increased.
Hitchens also speaks often of the USA since we still conduct executions. In the 1960s, it's estimated 90% of murders here in the states were so-called crimes of passion. Since the 1970s, when the Supreme Court temporarily halted executions and many states have since scrapped the penalty or made it an infrequent punishment, murders that were crimes of passion have fallen to 70%,, indicating that "stranger murders" and killings committed in the course of other crimes have increased.

7/7/11, 6:24 PM

Blogger Steve Sailer said...

Homicide cases are typically harder to get the right verdict than, say, assault and battery cases because the chief witness -- the victim -- isn't around to testify.

7/7/11, 8:42 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I was a kid, late 70's, Houston, Haynes was interviewed on one of those morning shows that did the dialing for dollars promotions. Anyway, the inept reporter stupidly asked Haynes questions that the reporter clearly could not handle the answers for. Haynes was a clearly cocky bastard who seemed to be enjoying himself. The two questions I remember:

1) Where did you get the nickname "Racehorse"?

ans: I played the running back position on my school football team and was a fast runner.

follow up: You were really that fast?

ans: yeah, for a white boy.

reporter looks at his own feet and mumbles

2) Some say that many of your clients were guilty, what do you say?

ans: Yeah, they were guilty. Why do you think they were willing to give me everything they had to get off?

reporter befuddled for rest of interview.

I was probably 11-12 at the time but I still remember the body language and demeanor of the pathetic reporter dude and Haynes bold yet almost bored confidence dealing with such a fool and an amateur.

7/7/11, 10:49 PM

Anonymous Felix M said...

"Many decades ago, when I was in high school, I came up with the idea that you should generally trust jury decisions to be right. It seemed like a good idea at the time. But, then I met Racehorse Haynes."

I suggest the conclusion is generally right when you have two "pedestrian" attorneys who confine themselves to arguing the facts.

7/7/11, 11:36 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"rightsaidfred said...

America likes to think defendants are innocent the way we think immigrants are hard working, and minorities are oppressed and will rise up and succeed if we just get the boot off their neck.

In reality, not so much, but the importance of myth is pretty profound.

7/7/11 6:02 AM "

That is funny, because compared to a bunch of whiny native-born Americans who believe that they ought to be entitled to a certain standard of living simply because they were born here, immigrants actually have to work really hard to get somewhere. In fact, as a business owner, I would rather prefer to hire hardworking immigrants over whiny Americans who always shirk work and then give me lips about it. Lazy employees with too many attitude problems and who expects to be overpaid for their labor does not a good employee make. That is why all the lower-IQ white cannot compete and will constantly whine about immigration.

7/8/11, 1:07 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

"When I was in college, I once had a part time job working for the top defense attorney in Houston, Richard "Racehorse" Haynes."

Why did you work for such an evil sleazebag. Suppose Matthew Yglesias had worked for some lawyer who got a whole bunch of black or illegal murderers off the hook for killing innocent people.
I hope you finally had had enough and spat in Haynes's eye."

Yeah, but you see, they were all white. So it was all good. Get with the program please.

7/8/11, 1:11 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That is why all the lower-IQ white cannot compete and will constantly whine about immigration."

Lower IQ whites aren't the ones complaining about immigration. No one is going to make a living wage working for a hardscrabble immigrant like yourself so they, dumb as they are, go into the fields that are hiring.

Higher IQ whites are the ones worrying about the cost of infrastructure and language instruction. Smarter whites are also weighing the worth of the immigrant population vs the demands newcomers make on America. Intelligent whites are also concerned about whether or not immigrants are loyal to our form of government.

Lower IQ whites are too busy making ends meet at jobs that pay much more than you can. I would bet those taxes you supposedly pay in excess to the rest of the population aren't all that significant either.

7/8/11, 1:55 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You've actually written a story where a hit man proves to be the more honorable man than the lawyer. I've known for a long time that lawyers are parasites who produce nothing while sucking
away the resources of actual working people. But forget comparing them to toilet scrubbers or other honest workers. I now actually have a higher respect for hired killers than lawyers. It never occurred to you that voluntarily associating with such a man was in and of itself dubious?

7/8/11, 10:30 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"2) Some say that many of your clients were guilty, what do you say?

ans: Yeah, they were guilty. Why do you think they were willing to give me everything they had to get off?"

It sounds like something that someone with the mentality of a prostitute would say. Either that or the words of a man who was resigned to spending eternity in whatever his conception of hell happened to be.

7/8/11, 10:35 AM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL