Texas Plans to Execute Jewish Man Denied a Fair Trial by an Anti-Semitic Judge
UPDATE: On Friday, October 4, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, where Randy Halprin had sought relief before turning to the U.S. Supreme Court, granted a stay of execution. We commend this decision.
鈥淎 goddamn Kike.鈥�
鈥淭hat fuckin鈥� Jew.鈥�
According to pleadings filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court, that鈥檚 how Judge Vickers Cunningham referred to Randy Halprin, a Jewish defendant whose trial he presided over. The pleadings ask the court to 鈥攃urrently scheduled for Thursday, October 10 in Texas鈥攁nd to denying him the right to seek a new trial.
Halprin鈥檚 plea to the Supreme Court is based on substantial new evidence demonstrating that Cunningham, who is no longer a judge, is a virulent racist and anti-Semite who brought his views to bear on Halprin鈥檚 case. Based on the evidence gathered by Halprin and his attorneys, it appears that Cunningham hates anyone who is not white and Protestant. For example, an affidavit filed by Tammy McKinney, who grew up with Cunningham and, as an adult, attended the same church and clubs as him, stated that Cunningham regularly used slurs 鈥渟uch as 鈥榥igger,鈥� 鈥榳etback,鈥� 鈥榮pic,鈥� 鈥榢ike,鈥� [and] 鈥榯he fuckin鈥� Jews.鈥欌��
Amanda Tackett, who worked for his campaign to become the Dallas district attorney, similarly attested that Cunningham 鈥渟aid he wanted to run for office so that he could save Dallas from 鈥榥iggers,鈥� 鈥榳etbacks,鈥� Jews, and dirty Catholics.鈥� In addition, she recounted a discussion about a Jewish attorney鈥檚 investigation into wrongful convictions during which Cunningham complained that the 鈥溾�榝ilthy Jew鈥� . . . was going to come in and free all these 鈥榥iggers.鈥欌��
Cunningham has also repeatedly espoused anti-Jewish stereotypes, according to those who know him. In one instance detailed by Tackett, he warned that Jewish people need 鈥渢o be shut down鈥� because they control 鈥渁ll the money and all the power.鈥� He reportedly wore a stereotypical banker鈥檚 outfit (a green visor and suspenders) at a casino-themed party and declared that he was a 鈥淛ew banker.鈥� Even Cunningham鈥檚 mother that her son鈥檚 鈥渂iggest burden was his bigotry.鈥�
Despite his numerous derogatory comments to friends, family, and acquaintances, Cunningham managed to conceal the extent of his prejudice from the public for years鈥攗ntil a pulled back the curtain on him. No longer a judge, Cunningham was running for county commissioner when his brother revealed to the newspaper that he was a 鈥渓ifelong racist.鈥� The article also reported that Cunningham 鈥渄escribed criminal cases involving black people as 鈥楾.N.D.s,鈥� short for 鈥楾ypical [N-word] Deals.鈥欌�� And, the article exposed the existence of a trust he had set up in 2010 for his children, with a stipulation that provides a monetary distribution upon marriage but only if the child marries a white, Christian person of the opposite sex.
Although Cunningham acknowledged that he had established the discriminatory trust, he told the newspaper that his views 鈥渘ever translated into unfairness on the bench or discrimination in any way.鈥� But as we all know, that鈥檚 not how prejudice works. This sort of lifelong, deep-seated bigotry simply can鈥檛 be switched off just because an individual puts on a judge鈥檚 robe and takes the bench.
The Dallas News piece immediately garnered the attention of Halprin鈥檚 attorneys. As the presiding judge at his 2003 trial, Cunningham knew that Halprin was Jewish: His faith came up several times during the proceedings. On investigating further, the attorneys discovered that not only was Cunningham prejudiced against Jewish people generally, but he used anti-Semitic slurs when talking about Halprin. Moreover, according to McKinney, he 鈥渢ook special pride in the death sentences鈥� of Halprin and his co-defendants (known as the 鈥淭exas Seven鈥�) because 鈥渢hey included Latinos and a Jew,鈥� boasting, 鈥淔rom the wetback to the Jew, they knew they were going to die.鈥�
Like all criminal defendants, Randy Halprin was entitled to a fair trial with an unbiased, neutral arbiter. Instead, key rulings that helped determine his fate鈥攊ncluding the decision to prohibit him from presenting evidence to the jury mitigating his guilt鈥攚ere made by a judge who denigrated him as a 鈥済oddamn kike鈥� and 鈥渁 fucking Jew鈥� and who took pride in sentencing 鈥渢he Jew鈥� to death. That鈥檚 not due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor is it religious neutrality under the First Amendment. And it鈥檚 certainly not equal justice under the law.
Learn More 吃瓜直播 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Capital Punishment
Court Issues Order Finding Extensive And Irredeemable Defects In The Application Of The Death Penalty In Kansas. Explore Press Release.Court Issues Order Finding Extensive and Irredeemable Defects in the Application of the Death Penalty in Kansas
KANSAS CITY, Kan. 鈥� After hearing a historic challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty and the practice of death qualification, a Kansas trial court has issued a written order finding extensive and irredeemable defects in the application of the death penalty over the last 30 years. The court declined to rule on the ultimate questions regarding the constitutionality of the state鈥檚 death penalty and the practice of death qualification because the individuals who brought the challenge no longer faced the death penalty. In its opinion the court highlighted that: The death penalty is not a deterrent. 鈥淭he scientific community has found no reliable evidence of the death penalty being a deterrent to homicides.鈥� The death penalty is costly. 鈥淢ore than $4 million has been spent with the results being no death penalty sentences and zero executions.鈥� Racial bias infects capital prosecutions. 鈥淭he factors which distinguish death sentence cases from non-death sentence cases are the race and gender of the victim, and the race and gender of the defendant.鈥� Courts have been unable to ensure capital juries are free of racial bias. 鈥淸The legal framework for limiting discrimination in jury selection] is so flawed that it does not protect racial biases in jury selection and must be reformed, a fact known to Kansans for years.鈥� 鈥淚n each of the four cases where we raised this challenge in Kansas, none of our clients ultimately faced capital trials where the death penalty remained on the table,鈥� said Cassandra Stubbs, director of the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Capital Punishment Project. 鈥淭hat is no coincidence. The evidentiary hearings have consistently exposed uncomfortable truths to state prosecutors, the courts, and the public about the deep flaws and injustices embedded in the death penalty system. While we are relieved that none of our clients have received death sentences, the systemic issues that these cases have brought to light persist. We remain committed to challenging the death penalty on behalf of people facing capital charges in Kansas, with the hope that state legislators will end the death penalty and make future legal challenges unnecessary.鈥� The 吃瓜直播, the 吃瓜直播 of Kansas, Democracy Forward, the Kansas Death Penalty Defense Unit, Hogan Lovells, and Ali & Lockwood represented two individuals, Hugo Villaneuva-Morales and Antoine Fielder, in their constitutional pre-trial challenges to the death penalty in Wyandotte County. Following extensive pre-trial litigation, including the weeklong evidentiary hearing challenging the death penalty, the cases were resolved without the death penalty. The state and Mr. Fielder entered into a plea agreement and Mr. Fielder was sentenced to life without parole. The prosecution tried Mr. Villanueva-Morales for capital murder but ultimately withdrew its request for the death penalty. Because the two men no longer faced the prospect of a capital sentence, the court declined to address the broader constitutional claims. -
News & CommentaryApr 2025
Capital Punishment
Death Row Case Exposes Failures To Protect Childhood Trauma Survivors. Explore News & Commentary.Death Row Case Exposes Failures to Protect Childhood Trauma Survivors
Mikal Mahdi鈥檚 life was marked by abuse. Today, as he awaits execution, the courts have the responsibility to acknowledge the systemic failures that shaped his path. -
Florida Supreme CourtDec 2024
Capital Punishment
Michael Jackson V. State Of Florida. Explore Case.Michael Jackson v. State of Florida
This case gets at the very heart of our right to a jury trial. Traditionally and historically, the right to a jury trial has promised that a person could not be punished unless every single person in a group of one鈥檚 peers agreed, by jury vote, that that was the just outcome. However, Florida feels differently. When it comes to the death penalty, Florida is one of only two states that has decided that the 鈥渞ight to a trial by jury鈥� does not guarantee that a person will be sentenced to death by a unanimous jury. Instead, in Florida, a person can be sentenced to die even if four people on their jury think they should live. The state requires just eight of twelve jury votes for a death sentence, which not only disproportionately affects people of color, but the very ideals at the heart of the rights of citizenship. -
Press ReleaseFeb 2025
Capital Punishment
Aclu Responds To Supreme Court Decision In Glossip V. Oklahoma. Explore Press Release.吃瓜直播 Responds to Supreme Court Decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma
WASHINGTON 鈥� In a major win for due process, the U.S. Supreme Court today granted Richard Glossip, a man on Oklahoma鈥檚 death row, a new trial and a chance to be fully exonerated. Richard Glossip was convicted in 1998 and sentenced to death for allegedly asking Justin Sneed 鈥� the prosecution鈥檚 star witness 鈥� to murder another man. Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence connecting Glossip to the murder, and Glossip maintained his innocence throughout. His conviction was overturned by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals but, despite inconsistent testimony from Sneed at retrial, Glossip was convicted again. It was only then, after two trials and two appeals, that an independent investigation revealed that the prosecution had deliberately destroyed key evidence and additional potentially exculpatory and impeachment evidence was made available to the defense. Those files revealed that Sneed lied at trial about facts that cast his entire testimony into doubt. Despite these new revelations about prosecutorial misconduct, Glossip unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief, until the Supreme Court last year stayed his execution and agreed to hear the case. 鈥淩ichard Glossip has been fighting for two decades to prove his innocence; today the Supreme Court assured that he will finally have his day in court,鈥� said Brian Stull, deputy director of the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Capital Punishment Project. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision reveals the error-prone and arbitrary nature of the death penalty, and the devastating impact of false testimony and wrongfully withheld evidence. Even after it became clear that prosecutors had buried exculpatory evidence, the machinery of the death penalty continued to grind on for years. This case shows that we cannot trust the state convict and imprison only the innocent, let alone to ensure that innocent people are never strapped to the execution table. It is long past time to end the death penalty in our country.鈥� The 吃瓜直播 filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that prosecutors violated Glossip鈥檚 due process rights by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence and using Sneed鈥檚 false testimony to convict Glossip. The brief further highlights Oklahoma鈥檚 sordid history of violating these rights. 鈥淭ime after time, Oklahoma prosecutors have violated these precedents, despite repeated notice that their actions were not in compliance with the U.S. Constitution,鈥� the brief reads. This glaring pattern of errors almost led to the execution of an innocent person. It teaches that the government cannot be trusted to reliably, fairly, and equitably determine who should live and who should die. Glossip v. Oklahoma is part of the 吃瓜直播's Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.