Hank Skinner, Texas Death Row Inmate, Granted Stay Of Execution By Court Of Criminal Appeals

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a stay of execution to death row inmate Hank Skinner Monday, who was scheduled to be executed Nov. 9.

Multiple items from the crime scene have not been tested for DNA. The stay will determine whether the law allows the DNA to be tested.

Skinner, 49, was convicted of the 1993 deaths of his girlfriend and her two sons in Pampa, Texas. A group of current and former lawmakers, judges and lawyers called on Texas Gov. Rick Perry to order the testing of DNA to "ensure certainty." Skinner came within one hour of execution in March 2010 before the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay.

Perry, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, has declined to express an opinion about the upcoming execution, saying only that it's a matter for the courts.

The Huffington Post's Radley Balko reported on the Skinner case last week:

There is DNA from the crime scene that could exonerate Skinner -- or could affirm his guilt -- that has never been tested. That includes blood from the murder weapon, blood from a jacket left in Busby's home, a rape kit taken from Busby, scrapings from under Busby's fingernails and hairs she was clutching at the time of her death -- hairs that likely came from her killer. For more than a decade, Hank Skinner's legal team has tried to get that evidence tested, at no cost to the state of Texas. And for more than a decade, the Texas 31st District Attorney's Office has refused.

Skinner isn't exactly a poster boy for wrongful conviction. He had previously been convicted of assault, and by his own admission he was at the scene of the crime the night of the murders. Skinner's neighbor and ex-girlfriend told police that Skinner came to her home after the crime and implicated himself, then rattled off a number of contradictory stories.

But Skinner has maintained from the night he was arrested that he was passed out from a mixture of alcohol and codeine when the murders were committed. His defense team has produced testimony from toxicology experts who say Skinner had far too high a concentration of the drugs in his system for him -- a slight man at the time -- to have killed an adult woman and her two adult sons. At best he was groggy. He was likely unconscious. The state did conduct DNA testing on blood smears on Skinner's shirt, which matched two of the victims. But that could be consistent with Skinner's story, which is that he woke to find the bodies and tried to jostle the victims to see if they were still alive.

Skinner's lawyer, Rob Owen, issued a statement on the stay Monday:

The Court of Criminal Appeals with its decision today, has ensured that Mr. Skinner's request for DNA testing will receive the thorough and serious consideration it deserves. We are grateful for the Court's action and look forward to the opportunity to make Mr. Skinner's case for DNA testing in that forum.

Comments

[David Kit Friedman]

07:47 PM on 11/20/2011

What are the possible outcomes from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals?

[ktthrp6]

01:35 PM on 11/11/2011

Thankfully the court of Appeals has made the right decision, but will it be enough? This matter has been in question for far too long when the testing could have been done, at the expense of someone other than the state of Texas, long ago. What is the prosecution so afraid of? Why not just get the DNA testing done and either execute the man or let him go free if he's innocent? This has gotten way out of hand, and we only have the prosecution to blame. I don't get it- the test that was paid for by a Huffington Post blogger excluded Skinner, so wouldn't the state of Texas want to free an innocent man? Unfortunately, they don't, they only want to protect errors and mistakes they made in this case. If I made a mistake that could cost an innocent man his life, I would definitely swallow my pride and do the right thing. This is outrageous!

[wonderinbear]

07:48 PM on 11/09/2011

The prosecutor should agree as a matter of course to test the evidence. the basic obligation of all prosecutors is to do and seek justice and that gives the prosecutor the duty to represent the interests of all the people, which includes those accused of crimes as well as the victims. I have a great difficulty with those who forget the oath they swore if they would violate an oath they would violate anything and thus are untrustworthy.

[ktthrp6]

01:40 PM on 11/11/2011

I completely agree, and I don't understand what it is that is keeping the prosecution from trying to find out the truth! This has been going on for far too long, and it's like the prosecutor, Lynn Switzer, doesn't want the truth to come out. You are absolutely correct when you say the prosecutors are supposed to seek truth and justice, and unfortunately it seems like Texas only wants to add convictions and not find the truth. This is a man's life!

[tomasz1]

12:12 PM on 11/09/2011

DNA testing of all of the untested evidence has already been granted by Gov Perry after 5th Circuit realized that not adhering to SB122 - enacted after Skinner's victory at the Supreme Court -will cause litigation that may discredit the cozy pro-death penalty judges at that court house. DA Switzer must be shaking in her boots since there is slight possibilit­y of exoneratio­n. She cannot get away with her to the end refusal to follow SB122.

I am of the opinion that SB122 must be expanded to force testing of all available DNA evidence and not rely on a defendant'­s council to make a call. In the interests of justice, law enforcemen­t/ prosecutin­g attorney have to test everything found at a crime scene. To convict someone based on less that all available evidence goes against the oath of office for DA Switzer and any SA anywhere in this land; more specifical­ly, do they not have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? What other way of doing so than to test everything­.

Skinner's attorneys had enough backbone to take this case to the Supreme Court. The justices there, smart people, gave Texas a simple but powerful message that denying testing of all available DNA equates to violation of civil rights. Texas legislator­s got the message and enacted SB122.

The day when Texas will no longer play this Wild West game with people's lives and dutifully, in interests of justice, examine all evidence to secure conviction­s, is around the corner.

[mdipary2004]

11:03 PM on 11/08/2011

Just do the DNA. It will either free him or kill him, but DNA should be done. I think there is to many people worried about there own personal goals and Mr. Skinners case could sink them

[ashley22]

09:31 PM on 11/08/2011

The foreman of the jury that convicted Hank Skinner said he and some of his fellow jurors have grown
increasingly concerned that key pieces of evidence from the crime scene remain untested.Just last
month,Michael Morton was freed from prison after DNA testing proved he had spent 25 years behind
bars for a crime he did not commit.We have an opportunity for certainty in Skinner's case,but only if
the district attorney provides evidence for scientific testing.I strongly urge state officials to conduct
the testing of all untested evidence.For all our sakes,we can not afford to do otherwise.

[radarloveu2]

04:24 PM on 11/08/2011

looks like Hank got his nose done in prison

[scorpio21]

03:39 PM on 11/08/2011

I also feel that all evidence should be present.. All DNA tests done. Should have been done during the time Hank Skinner was on trial. It is the DA responsibility and the states. I am not saying he is not guilty.. I am saying it should have been proven without a doubt.. We are all innocent untill proven guilty for whatever crime big or small. So now its up to the DA , state of Texas or whomever to prove his gult , and if it comes back that he is innocent.. Then this man has spent all of those years in prison awaiting execution for something he did not do.. the court systen needs to get it together , these are peoples lives.. its not just Hank Skinner, but it is people before him that have been executed, or been sent to prison for many years to find out later they were innocent , or the man, or women that these such DNA tests were never done , and they were in prisons , or executed... many will never know if these such people were really in fact guilty or innocent..facts .. just fact.. no doubts

[ktthrp6]

01:45 PM on 11/11/2011

Unfortunately for regular citizens, the term "innocent until proven guilty" is not the way it is anymore. It seems like the juries think that if the prosecution can indict a person, then there must be evidence of guilt, and regardless of what the trial proves, juries are convicting more and more. I think there should be some sort of educating of jury members before they can serve, some sort of knowledge about the Constitution and civil rights, etc. because there are too many wrongful convictions.

[proudloudlib]

03:13 PM on 11/08/2011

If there is DNA, just test it already. I don't care what the law says about it, common human decency says we don't execute people without some degree of certainty. Prosecutors are supposed to be after the truth, not a spotless conviction record. Who cares if you get a little embarrassed at making a mistake? That is far outweighed by (A) not killing the wrong man, and (B) going after the right one. It is utterly beyond me why anyone would not want the DNA tested.

[teapot90]

03:07 PM on 11/08/2011

Amazing that Texas would delay this execution long enough to test a few more items from the crime scene- but refused to review the previous man's case when 7 of 9 eyewitnesses recanted their testimony, saying that the prosecution used threats and duress to make them testify against him, That man was executed on the basis of nothing but flawed testimony - no physical evidence at all.

The cruelty of our criiminal justice system takes the breath away. Simply put, if the prosecution doesn't like you, they can make you die. Nothing but banning capital punishment can change that.

[BlairCase]

09:30 AM on 11/09/2011

There were no eyewitnesses to the murders in the Hank Skinner case, except Skinner himself. The witness who partilly recanted her testimony was Skinner's ex-girlfriend. Skinner fled to her house and hid in a closet after the murders. She originally testiffied that she did not call police because Skinner threatened her. Now, she says Skinner told her not to call police, but didn't threaten her. However, her daughter continues to insist that Skinner threatened her mother.

[Anne71]

03:07 PM on 11/08/2011

If there is ever DNA available for testing then it should definately be tested. They apparently already tested a hair that was clutched in the victims hand and it did not point to Hank Skinner. Given that and some of the statements given, which implicated her own uncle, they absolutely should test that DNA. If the skin under Twila's nails and the rape kit match Hank Skinner, then by all means, excecute the man.

[BlairCase]

09:36 AM on 11/09/2011

The strands of hair clutched in the victim's had was tested. It was consistent with both Skinner and the victim. (There may be more definitive tests available today.) The medical examiner ruled there was no evidence of rape. It wasn't a sexual murder. DNA tests show the victims' blood on Skinner's clothes.

[Anne71]

10:33 AM on 11/09/2011

It did not turn out the way the D.A. expected.

While some of the tests confirmed that Skinner was in the house that New Year's Eve (which he does not dispute, explaining he'd passed out from consuming alcohol and codeine), several results pointed strongly to his innocence.

Bloodied gauze found on the front sidewalk amidst a trail of blood -- not from Skinner or Twila. (One of her sons was murdered in his bed, and the other stumbled out the back door before collapsing on a neighbor's porch.)

Blood on a cassette recorder found near Twila's body -- not from Skinner or Twila.


A hair clutched in Twila's hand -- not from Skinner or Twila. From "a stranger," a scientist concluded.

[wonderinbear]

07:43 PM on 11/09/2011

Now I am convinced that the testing must happen. Hair is not comparable like DNA, because human hair only differs by race. I would also differ if it had been dyed or treated. DNA is an exclusionary type of evidence it does not confirm innocence only excludes a potential suspect from the pool. So if the case was built upon hair then the expert testimony is highly suspect.

[mpoosky]

02:57 PM on 11/08/2011

This Death Penaltyy Crap Is Crazy How Could You Kill Your Family..?

[teapot90]

03:00 PM on 11/08/2011

You should seek help.

[proudloudlib]

03:13 PM on 11/08/2011

That is not the way our justice system works.

[kimdarryl1]

01:26 PM on 11/08/2011

whether he did it or not he was there,and this is exactly why I tell my kids chose your friends wisely, cause you could pay for your friends crime with your life.

[Samantha Knapp]

01:03 PM on 11/08/2011

It is completely baffling to me that in this day and age we didn't test DNA... How was this case even tried without it! Texas.........FAIL!

[The Accountant]

02:31 PM on 11/08/2011

In his original trial, his worthless public defender did not believe his innocence claims, therefore did not ask for it....so goes the story in Texas. Happens a lot more than we'd like to believe. Look at all the DNA exonerations, men who have cried innocence for 20 to 30 years.

[BlairCase]

09:39 AM on 11/09/2011

The prosecution did present DNA evidence, which all incriminated Skinner, at the trial. The defense decline the state's offer to conduct DNA test on other items, thinking it would only further implicate Skinner.

[ktthrp6]

01:55 PM on 11/11/2011

Actually, Skinner's public defender was a forner prosecutor who had prior "run-ins" with Skinner. He claimed that the DNA testing would further incriminate Skinner and advised that it not be tested.