The Cruzifiction of Michael Wayne Haley



Herewith a quiz:  If you were the Solicitor General for the State of Texas and it came to your attention that someone had been sentenced to prison for 16 1/2 years for (i)committing an offense for which the maximum sentence was only 2 years, (ii)) and was now in his seventh year of incarceration, which of the following things would you do:  (a)  immediately take all available steps to make sure that the  sentence was corrected and the prisoner immediately released, (b) do everything possible to make sure that the prisoner served the full 16 ½  years even though that was 12 more years than the maximum amount the court could have imposed had the defendant’s lawyer, the judge and the prosecutor not all made mistakes.?  If you selected (a) you should support someone other than Ted Cruz.  If you selected (b) you may want to send Mr. Cruz some money. Michael Wayne Haley was the man who served 5 more years than the maximum permitted under state law.

Michael stole a calculator from a Wal-Mart store and was caught and convicted.  After he was convicted of the theft everyone thought it was his third conviction and  he was tried and convicted as an habitual offender and sentenced to 16 ½ years in prison.  There was just one problem.  His conviction on stealing the calculator was only his second conviction and he wasn’t eligible to be convicted as an habitual offender.  The judge, the prosecutor and the defense counsel all had made a bad mistake.  The maximum sentence to which Michael was entitled was 2 years in prison, 14 ½ years fewer than the number of years to which he was sentenced.

After Michael had served 7 years, someone discovered the mistake that had been made and Michael sought post-conviction relief arguing that the evidence presented at the penalty hearing was insufficient to support the habitual offender conviction.  A sensible person might conclude that was the end of the matter.  Texas did not.  The state court rejected  his petition on procedural grounds because he had not pointed out the mistake earlier.  In other words,  it was OK for him to stay in prison for a total of 16 ½  years because, as people are wont to say, mistakes happen.

Those of my readers who are not schooled in the law may think it odd that a court would say a procedural error would make it OK to keep someone in prison 8 times longer than the law allows.  That would appear to a layperson to be a horrible miscarriage of justice for the victim. After the state court refused to give Michael relief from the excessive sentence, Michael went to Federal Court to seek relief.  When the District Court heard his case it concluded in more formal language than this, that Michael should not have to serve more time in prison.  Texas disagreed and went to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in an effort to permit Michael to complete his 16-½ year sentence.  The Court of Appeals refused to permit Texas to continue to incarcerate Michael on the basis of a mistake.  It said:  “If we were to condemn Haley to suffer the consequences of an affirmative finding  . . .  he would continue serving a sentence as an habitual offender of which he is in fact innocent.  This is a classic example of a ‘fundamental miscarriage of justice,’ precisely what the actual innocence exception was created to prevent.”

Texas found the court’s reasoning offensive and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  It hoped that that Court would enable Texas to keep poor Michael in jail for the entire 16 ½ years. By the time the case arrived at the United States Supreme Court, Ted Cruz was the Solicitor General for the State of Texas.  It was he who argued in the United States Supreme Court that Michael’s conviction as an habitual criminal should stand even though he wasn’t one.  He had his reasons and they were the kinds of tortured legal obfuscatory reasons that would only appeal to a man of Ted Cruz’s towering intellect.  They must have been good ones since he was arguing that an innocent man should continue to be punished by the state of Texas for a crime of which everyone agrees he was not guilty.

During the course of arguing before the United States Supreme Court and urging the Court to rule that Michael should remain in prison, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Mr. Cruz:  “Is there some rule that you can’t confess error in your state?” That would be a nice question for the moderator in the next Republican debate to ask Mr. Cruz.  He almost certainly has a ready answer for that question.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine


zen economics

Weekend Edition
September 22, 2017
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
The Killing of History
Anthony DiMaggio
Who Are the “Alt-Right”? On the Rise of Reactionary Hatred and How to Fight it
Paul Street
Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s “Vietnam War”: Some Predictions
Douglas Valentine – Lars Schall
The CIA: 70 Years of Organized Crime
Paul Atwood
Korea? It’s Always Really Been About China!
Jeffrey St. Clair
Imperial Ruins: Frank Lloyd Wright in Hollywood
Mike Whitney
Uncle Sam vs. Russia in Eastern Syria: the Nightmare Scenario   
Andrew Levine
Trump Flux
Paul Michael Johnson
Lessons on Colonial Monuments From an Unlikely Place
Benjamin Dangl
Masters of War: Senate Defense Budget Set to Exceed One Third of Global Military Spending
Brian Cloughley
NATO’s Decomposing Corpse
Linda Pentz Gunter
Stanislav Petrov: the Ignominious End of the Man Who Saved the World
Margaret Kimberley
Is Trump a White Supremacist? Yes, But So is America
Stephen Cooper
When Racism Lurks in the Heart of a Death Penalty Juror
Robert Fantina
Bombast Unchained: Trump at the United Nations
Ralph Nader
The Censorious Vortex of the “Flash News” Barons
Sheldon Richman
Trump’s Americanized Fascism
Don Fitz
Any White Cop Can Kill a Black Man at Any Time
Louis Proyect
The Cancer in Blue: Cop Documentaries
Mike Miller
A Small “d” Democratic Reflection on Hurricane Irma
John Feffer
It’s Time to Make a Deal With North Korea
John Eskow
MSNBC Goes Full Dr. Strangelove
Pepe Escobar
Unmasked: Trump Doctrine Vows Carnage for New Axis of Evil
Kenneth Surin
London Taxi Driver Chat
Georgina Downs
Poison in the Fields: Agriculture as Chemical Warfare
Basav Sen
The Brutal Racial Politics of Climate Change and Pollution
Jill Richardson
Finding a Common Language on Climate
Foday Darboe
Climate Change and Conflict
Brad Evans
An Open Letter to a Mexican Female Student
Andrew Stewart
A Few Things About Nonviolence: A Response to Yoav Litvin
Uri Avnery
Thank You, Smotrich the Fascist
Camilo Gómez
DACA and the Future of Conservatism
Myles Hoenig
Whose Streets? Their Streets
Caitlin Munchick
Busting Power, Not Shutting It Off
George Wuerthner
Megafires, Climate Change and Industrial Logging
Bob Lord
Trump’s Tax Plan: a Billion or Three for Guys Like Him
Dan Bacher
Westlands Water District: California WaterFix Is ‘Not Financially Viable’
Cesar Chelala
Breaking Up Barriers to Peace in the Middle East
Emily Norton
Can Anti-Racist Businesses Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is?
Jimmy Centeno
Along the Border: the Artwork of Malaquias Montoya
Binoy Kampmark
Brexiting Hard: Boris Johnson Goes to War
Robert Koehler
Reclaiming the Truth About Vietnam
Martin Billheimer
Kzradock: the Imperialism of the Soul
Charles R. Larson
Review: Paul Yoon’s “The Mountain”
David Yearsley
Furore in Eugene!