Time is so elusive. It's hard to remember when my journalism students and I weren't reporting about Hank Skinner's case. That's partly because it's been more than a decade, our oldest active case. When we first heard about Skinner's plight, George W. Bush was still governor of Texas.
We got involved sometime in 2000, when I got a call from Bryson Hull, an AP reporter in Houston. (I'm fairly certain it was early spring because the Chicago Cubs were beginning what would prove to be their 92nd season of futility. That's another way to mark time.) Hull told me about a Texas condemned man who steadfastly professed his innocence. His name was Henry Watkins Skinner, but he insisted on being called "Hank."
I distinctly recall reading the official record in Hank Skinner's case and wondering why significant crime scene evidence -- the murder weapons, the rape kit, a blood-stained windbreaker -- had not been scientifically tested. I also recall asking my journalism students, who were preoccupied with other reporting projects, if they wanted to interview Skinner on Texas' death row to see if he'd agree to DNA testing. Their reply: Road trip!
At some point, the students reported that Skinner was eager to have the tests performed. Later, the State's star witness told the students she had lied at Skinner's trial and other witnesses had good reason to believe the female victim's late uncle had committed the crime. The bloodied windbreaker looked like the uncle's, a witness said. DNA testing might determine whether it was his.
In 2010, six of the Skinner jurors told a new group of students that his life should be spared unless tests on the remaining evidence prove his guilt.
Another year passed. Still no tests.
Now the clock is ticking on Hank Skinner's life. A Texas judge has ordered him executed on Nov. 9, less than a week from today. He would be executed even though the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year gave him the right to sue for access to the crime scene evidence. Executed even though that lawsuit is presently before a federal magistrate. Executed despite a new Texas statute that guarantees post-conviction DNA testing.
Texas officials argue that Skinner had plenty of time to ask for the tests -- before his trial in 1995. Now it's too late, they say.
Seriously? When is it ever too late to learn the truth? If Skinner is guilty, the tests should prove it. If he's innocent, the tests should prevent Texas from making a fatal mistake.
Skinner, 49, has been on death row for sixteen years, six years longer than the life expectancy of the men who reside in the Allan B. Polunsky Condemned Unit. For most of that time, Texas law enforcement has endlessly fought DNA testing, litigating the case at taxpayer's expense.
Now they're counting on a Texas judge to reject a stay and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to side with the judge. That would leave the case in the hands of Gov. Rick Perry, who has the power to order a 30-day reprieve while the tests are done -- paid for by the defense.
Gov. Perry seems to have his own problems lately. Why add the execution of a possibly innocent man to the list?
Show the world, Governor, that the perception of you is wrong -- that you aren't a cowboy who endorses executions at any cost. Make the Skinner case a turning point in your career. Do what your predecessor, George W. Bush, did in a death row case with untested evidence. "Any time DNA evidence can be relevant as to the guilt or innocence of a person on death row, we need to use it," Bush declared in ordering a reprieve.
Stop the execution, Governor, and support DNA testing for Hank Skinner.
It's about time.
Keeping You Posted:
As expected, Texas Judge Steven R. Emmert has denied Hank Skinner's request for DNA testing under the new state law that provides for such tests in exactly these circumstances. The judge's opinion was one sentence long. It contained no reason for the denial and cited no cases -- not even the relevant state law. Skinner's lawyers will appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Meanwhile, his supporters have begun their own appeal -- to Gov. Rick Perry. The on-line petition to the governor may be found at http://www.change.org/petitions/withdraw-execution-warrant-and-grant-dna-testing-to-hank-skinner-2
The defesne would have us believe that a completely incapacitated Skinner, somehow, traveled the 4 blocks from the murder scene, went to his ex girlfriends house, hid in her closet and he was covered in blood from the crime scene.
Skinner's own blood spatter expert found that Skinner's "passed out" story was inconsistent with the blood being all over Skinner.
Skinner's defense is that he was completely incapacitated the night of the murders, a defense which is contradicted by his confession, by the blood spatter evidence and by his travels to his ex girlfriend's house?
Why did Skinner chose to walk the 4 blocks to his ex girlfriends house, instead of calling the police?
Skinner refused additional DNA testing because he was implicated by the prior, multiple DNA tests, pre trial, that tied him to the crime scene and he didn't want more DNA to hurt his case.
The only reason for such denial of additional DNA testing is that Skinner knew additional DNA evidence would harm him even more.
Skinner, his defense counsel and other death penalty opponents are saying that the untested DNA will prove Skinner innocent, meaning that Skinner decided, pre trial, that it was better to face a death sentence than to face freedom, the only "logic" for Skinner's refusal of the additional DNA testing, when he "knew" it would prove his innocence. Absurd, of course.
Another anti death penalty fraud?
What the h*** is wrong with TEXAS?
I've signed the petition, for what its worth.
Execution should be left to the worst of the worst and guiltiest of the guiltiest. While this man had his day in court, the DNA is a new factor that must be considered.
This isn't primarily about the issue of capital punishment. Whether you believe in the death penalty or not, whether it's a condemned prisoner or a lifer, I would hope you'd support DNA testing that can determine innocence or guilt.
BTW, your views about the death penalty reflect those of most Americans today -- that it should be used for "the worst of the worst and the guiltiest of the guiltiest," as you nicely put it.
Appreciate the kind words. Please keep reading and posting! I promise a blockbuster about this case on Monday.
David
http://lastsuppersbook.blogspot.com/
But as the last few years have passed and I've began to educate myself on some of the cases that were going to result in the death penalty, I fail to see how it's ever a logical choice. I somewhat feel that Prison serves three different purposes: Safety (for the public), Punishment and Rehabilitation (for the criminal). What does a prisoner have to fear in death? There is nothing for them as soon as they die. No more punishment or seclusion from the rest of the world. It's over. You aren't teaching anybody a lesson by sentencing them to death. All you're doing is trying to instill fear in the remaining civilians so that they won't commit the same crime. That has proven to work? On top of that, you spend an ungodly amount of money just to put the criminal to rest. In my opinion, keep them in a cell for their life sentence. Prison is a miserable place. Much more miserable than anything they'd experience in death.
The DNA results need to come back before any further action is taken. Not even an option Perry.
However, they'd have to prove 100% that he was innocent before I'd support his release from Prison.
Murder victims are already dead, nothing can change that. But with a flawed justice system, wrongful convictions happen. Executing an innocent is something that cannot be undone.
1. The DNA testing that was done, pre trial, hurt Skinner and helped convict him.
2. Skinner refused further testing because he knew it would hurt him, even more. It is the only reason for such a denial.
3. What Texas is attempting to prevent, now, in testing the DNA that Skinner refused to test, pre trial, is a very bad precedent, to wit:
If Skinner succeeds, this sets a precedent that, within certain cases, which can be managed, just so, the defendant will be able to go back and say, wait a minute, I don't like the outcome of my trial, because of the strategy I chose, I want a do-over, via new trial or appeals, so maybe I can get a better result next time.
It is a horrible precedent, which the state must fight and for which all criminals and defense counsel are drooling over, both for very good and obvious reasons.
Some in the media, inexcuseably, are not presenting that fact to their readers.
It is "the" important and only reason the state is fighting this fight - to stop criminals, their attorneys and their supporters from gaming the system, even more.
If the defendant happens to be innocent of the crime they were convicted of, why wouldn't they deserve a right to appeal? I wouldn't call the a horrible precedent.
I don't know if Skinner committed the crime in question or not. I haven't really followed the case, but if the defense is willing to pay for the cost of the test, I don't see how allowing the test hurts anything. If the test is inconclusive, or shows his guilt, TX can still kill him, they just have to wait another month. Is TX really that bloodthirsty that they're not willing to wait a month?