UPDATE: 10-29-10 INNOCENT MAN FREED FROM DEATH ROW

Texas Monthly is reporting ...

"For eighteen years Anthony Graves insisted that he had nothing to do with the gruesome murder of a family in Somerville. That’s exactly how long it took for justice to finally be served."

 "At the recommendation of the Burleson County district attorney’s office, state district judge Reva Towslee-Corbett signed a motion that stated, simply, 'We have found no credible evidence which inculpates this defendant.' In other words, all capital murder charges were dropped."

"Former Harris County assistant district attorney Kelly Siegler, who has sent nineteen men to death row in her career, went even further in her statements. Siegler laid the blame for Graves’s wrongful conviction squarely at the feet of former Burleson County D.A. Charles Sebesta. 'Charles Sebesta handled this case in a way that would best be described as a criminal justice system’s nightmare,' Siegler said. Over the past month, she explained, she and her investigator, retired Texas Ranger Otto Hanak, reviewed what had happened at Graves’s trial. After talking to witnesses and studying documents, they were appalled by what they found. 'It’s a prosecutor’s responsibility to never fabricate evidence or manipulate witnesses or take advantage of victims,' she said. 'And unfortunately, what happened in this case is all of these things.' Graves’s trial, she said, was 'a travesty.'”

Original Blog Entry ...

Update: With only hours to go before the publication of this blog entry, I saw a news bulletin that demanded that my original blog entry be modified.

This is exactly the way the Supreme Court should work when a man’s life is at stake and there is any potential for executing an innocent man. I do not know whether or not he is innocent, but this is the way I want the law to work.

Original Blog Entry …

A number of years I was an adamant proponent of the death penalty, especially in cases where guilt is irrefutably established by both witnesses and the evidence. However, in the intervening years, I have witnessed the egregious manipulation of high-profile death penalty cases by both the investigators and the prosecution for personal and political reasons. Now I am not so sure that I would blindly adhere to my previous position.

Considering the time, legal effort and money that is spent to house the condemned prisoner and exhaust all appeals, it seems to me to be a cost-effective procedure to use DNA testing where there is the possibility (not I did not say probability) of exculpatory evidence.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting … 

“Texas death row inmate's final request: DNA testing”

“His odds look poor, but a murder convict hopes the Supreme Court makes Texas put off his execution.”

“Texas death row inmate Hank Skinner, convicted of murdering his girlfriend and her two sons 16 years ago, has only one request before he is executed next week.
He says the state should be required to do DNA tests of evidence from the victim, such as semen and blood under her fingernails, that could prove, once and for all, who was the real killer. His lawyers do not say they are certain he is innocent. They are certain, however, that no one should be put to death without testing crucial evidence that could show the wrong man was convicted.”

“Skinner has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the execution, set for Wednesday, to permit time for the testing.”

Could he be innocent? 

“But police and prosecutors did not test other evidence from the crime scene, including a vaginal swab from the victim and her fingernail clippings. It appeared as though she had been raped and struggled with her killer.
Busby had left a New Year's Eve party before midnight after her drunken uncle made rude sexual advances.”

“Two bloody knives also went untested, even though her 20- and 22-year-old sons had been stabbed to death. Skinner's appointed defense lawyer could have had this evidence tested prior to the trial, but he did not do so.”

Is this a case of attorney malfeasance or simply a delaying tactic to postpone the execution of the sentence?

"’In any investigation today, all of this evidence would have been tested for DNA,’ said Rob Owen, a University of Texas law professor who now represents Skinner. ‘But why not do the testing now?’"

“Prosecutors declined to comment. But they, and some of the judges who have ruled on his appeals, said that because Skinner's trial lawyer did not ask for the extra DNA testing, it was too late now. Other judges said that because they saw ‘ample evidence’ of his guilt, no further testing was required. In January, a magistrate rejected Skinner's final appeal.”

No man should be executed unless the verdict was produced by evidence beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt.

But there appears to be some level of doubt in this case.

“arose about Skinner's guilt 10 years ago after an investigation by students from the Medill Innocence Project at Northwestern University. They found another ex-girlfriend who had seen Skinner shortly after the murders and said he was too drunk and disoriented to have killed three people, including one son who stood 6-feet-6 and weighed 225 pounds. She also said Skinner did not have cuts or scratch marks, as would have been expected after a struggle.”

“The students also found a neighbor of the uncle who said he had cleaned his van and removed the carpet a day after the killings. The uncle did not come under investigation, and later died in an auto accident.”

The request seems reasonable to me …

“Skinner's current lawyers have asked Gov. Rick Perry to postpone the execution for a month to allow for the testing. They also asked the high court for an emergency order to block the execution.”

“Owen said that if blood or skin from the victim's fingernails has DNA matching Skinner's, it would confirm his guilt. If the test finds the DNA of another man, ‘I think that exonerates him,’ he said.”

Just who does the Supreme Court represent these day: Political ideologues or the Constitution?

“Skinner's appeals run squarely into a 5-4 ruling from the Supreme Court last year saying the Constitution does not give convicts the right to demand DNA testing of crime-scene evidence. But that case involved a paroled rapist in Alaska, not a prisoner facing execution with evidence still untested.”

I think that the Supreme Court’s precedent is not applicable in this case. Everything that can be practically done should be done to determine a man’s guilt or innocence when he is facing a capital crime.

Bottom line …

For those who think I might be turning into a liberal, rest assured my opinion is conditioned on the Constitution’s safeguards. I believe that the Supreme Court should take into consideration that a man’s life is sacrosanct and that it should be safeguarded under any and all ambiguous conditions. To the extent of providing mandatory retroactive DNA testing of old evidence in capital cases and to commuting the sentences of those with ambiguous cases to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

And for those who knowingly aid and abet the incarceration of an innocent man or who stand in the way of his defense, I believe that there should be a stiff jail sentence to discourage bad behavior on the part of investigators, prosecutors and politicians.

In my perfect world, Roland Burris would not be a sitting Senator, but an inmate for knowingly keeping a man on death row for political reasons. <Source>

There is a time for political ideology … but when a fellow human beings life is at state under questionable circumstances, I would much rather err on the side of life in prison without the possibility of parole rather than execute an innocent man.

-- steve

Reference Links:

Texas death row inmate's final request: DNA testing - latimes.com

Supreme Court stops execution of convicted killer in Texas|latimes.com