UPDATE: The Texas District Court judge that set Charles Hood’s exe­cu­tion date has with­drawn the war­rant for exe­cu­tion and recused him­self from the case, there­by like­ly delay­ing the exe­cu­tion indef­i­nite­ly. Hood’s attor­neys filed a motion for dis­cov­ery of infor­ma­tion about the affair between the judge and pros­e­cu­tor at Hood’s tri­al. (Dallas Morning News, June 17, 2008). Hood was grant­ed a 30-day reprieve by the gov­er­nor.

Charles Hood is sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed in Texas on June 17. His attor­neys recent­ly filed an appeal argu­ing that the judge and the pros­e­cu­tor at Hood’s tri­al were hav­ing an affair at the time of the tri­al. The appeal includes an affi­davit from a for­mer mem­ber of the dis­trict attor­ney’s office that pros­e­cut­ed Hood stat­ing that it was ​“com­mon knowl­edge” that the Judge, Verla Sue Holland, and the pros­e­cu­tor, Tim O’Connell, had a six-year rela­tion­ship and that this raised doubts about the impar­tial­i­ty of the tri­al.

Judge Holland also served on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the court that will ini­tial­ly review Hood’s claim that she should have recused her­self. The Texas Constitution states that judges must avoid ​“any appear­ance of impro­pri­ety.” Hood has also filed a request with the gov­er­nor for a reprieve.
(N.Y. Times, June 13, 2008). See Arbitrariness.

UPDATE:
Ten of the coun­try’s lead­ing legal ethi­cists filed a state­ment on the eve of the exe­cu­tion with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stat­ing such a rela­tion­ship ren­dered Hood’s tri­al ​“invalid” because there was a ​“struc­tur­al defect” requir­ing a vacat­ing of his con­vic­tion. (Press Release, Texas Defender Service, June 16, 2008).

Citation Guide