Test the DNA. That is the simple request of Hank Skinner to Texas officials before they carry out his execution, which is scheduled for November 9. I do not know if Mr. Skinner is innocent or guilty -- but I do know firsthand the critical importance of DNA testing. Nearly twenty years ago, I became the first person in the United States exonerated from death row when post-conviction DNA testing proved my innocence.
In 1985, I was convicted and sentenced to death in Maryland for a crime I did not commit. I spent eight years in prison, two of those on death row, before I obtained the testing that led to my exoneration.
DNA testing not only proved my innocence. Ten years after I was released from prison, DNA helped identify the true person who committed the tragic murder of a young girl for which I had faced execution. That person confessed and is serving life in prison.
The only reason my name was cleared, and the right man brought to justice, is because prosecutors agreed to test the evidence. I am living proof that when scientific evidence is available, there is simply no excuse to refuse testing.
Texas officials have senselessly fought against DNA testing in Mr. Skinner's case for over a decade. Mr. Skinner came within one hour of execution last year before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened. He now faces execution again despite the State's continuing to vehemently block testing of key pieces of never-tested DNA evidence.
Such testing could resolve the doubts that persist in Mr. Skinner's case. For example, a man's windbreaker was found next to the body of Mr. Skinner's girlfriend Twila Busby, who was tragically murdered along with her two sons. Untested DNA evidence on the windbreaker includes blood spatter, human hairs, and perspiration stains. Investigation after Mr. Skinner was sent to Death Row revealed that another suspect had stalked Ms. Busby at a party on the night of the murder and left the party shortly after she did.
It would be indefensible for Texas to execute Mr. Skinner without taking the simple step of testing the DNA evidence. Over a dozen former prosecutors, judges and law enforcement and current and former Texas elected officials have called on state officials, including the Gray County District Attorney, the Texas Attorney General and Governor Rick Perry, to conduct the DNA testing. The State ought to heed these calls and do everything possible to be sure they have convicted the right person, particularly when it comes to death penalty cases.
Since my exoneration, I have worked to ensure that no defendants are denied the critical testing that saved my life. That is why I helped champion a federal law in 2004 to provide funds for post-conviction DNA testing.
Just this year, Texas lawmakers similarly recognized the vital importance of DNA testing. In May, the Texas Legislature passed a law expanding access to post-conviction DNA testing. The new law is designed for cases like Mr. Skinner's, where available DNA evidence has never been tested. Testing reliable scientific evidence can provide certainty and help maintain confidence in the criminal justice system.
The State has absolutely nothing to lose by putting off Mr. Skinner's upcoming execution to allow these tests to be conducted. Whether DNA proves Mr. Skinner's guilt or innocence, Texas officials should not be afraid of seeking the truth.
DNA allowed the mistakes in my case to be caught in time. Texas must test the evidence in Mr. Skinner's case before it is too late.
Kirk Bloodsworth was exonerated by DNA testing in 1993 after spending eight years in Maryland prison, two on death row, for a crime he did not commit. Mr. Bloodsworth was the first exoneree in a capital conviction in the United States.
Alan Schroeder: Rick Perry: Afraid to Debate?
If DNA evidence is going to be ANALYZED for trial, it needs to be an all-or-nothing-proposition: ALL of it gets tested, OR NONE of it is. Skinner wouldn't be getting this 2nd apple bite if that were the case.
However, even HAD that happened @ trial, there's advancements in testing technology, yielding more accurate results. Burden of proof would reside w/inmate to show that science as it is NOW, vs. what it was THEN, has advanced such that more testing would yield a result that would exonerate him.
I perish the tho't of SB122's opening floodgates for further appeals, to stave off execution. Legislators should go back to drawing board for a follow-up law: NO DNA analysis later, IF you declined analysis for TRIAL. They could enact a statute that'd pass Constitutional muster: the defendant AGREES he has no right of FIRST TIME analysis of evidence LATER; can ONLY have ANALYZED DNA evidence available @ time of trial RE-analyzed.
If incriminating, ANALYZED evidence is withheld from jury by defendant, s/he could ONLY have it retested IF scientific advancements have real potential for a different result.
Yes, a life's @ stake here, but I have problems w/his declining evidence analyzed for trial...it was available, why not? State wouldn't have to be dealing w/this matter again now.
You write, "I perish the tho't of SB122's opening floodgates for further appeals, to stave off execution." Death row defendant's have a constitutional right to appeal and litigate if necessary. Texas secures death sentences with incomplete DNA evidence and improper assessment of future dangerousness. The limit on words to this post prevents me from providing examples to back this statement, but will happily do so upon request.
The train took off from the station and it seems that a precedent is being born. Good. Testing of all available crime-scene DNA is the appropriate way of securing a death sentence.
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, which is contradicted by his confession, by the blood spatter evidence and by his travels to his ex girlfriends 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.
Could this be another anti death penalty fraud? Of course.
"DNA tests can be granted only if testing wasn't available at trial, if testing was not technologically capable of proving guilt or innocence, or was not tested through no fault of the convicted person and, should therefore, now be tested in the interests of justice. If the evidence was previously tested and can be subjected to newer testing techniques that could result in a more accurate result, then it can be ordered to be tested again." You can find full analysis of this bill at http://www.ellis.senate.state.tx.us/pr11/p052011a.htm
It is no longer a question of whether Skinner is quilty. It is now a question of DA Switzer refusal to follow SB122, penal code enacted specifically because Texas' Senate has legislators that have fully functional frontal lobes and got the message from Supreme Court loud and clear refusal equates with violation of civil rights. Let the DNA be tested as it certainly has to be if SB122 is to be followed. It will prove Skinner guilt, satisfy the law and make you happy when he is finally executed. But let's hold Texas accountable to its penal code first.
If he's guilty as .ELL! GOOD. EXECUTE him. But PROVE it beyond the shadow of all doubt BEFORE that.
It's a win/win for everybody--except perhaps a few lying public servants who don't want their handiwork to be revealed, ala. the Beverly Hall Scandal.
The more Dudley whines about it, the more suspicious I am of everything he writes.
For the record, I'm just a casual observer. I have no idea about this case or who Skinner is. I'm all in favor of the death penalty, PROPERLY CARRIED OUT. It's that irritating dog-eared copy of the US Constitution which motivates me to write this. And I am TRULY embarassed to be a citizen in a country which has executed SO MANY INNOCENT MEN whose innocence COULD have been prevented with the PROPER procedures, and in particular, the TWO WITNESSES which the Holy Bible calls for.
The text of the order from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals states that “the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 64, which provides for DNA testing, has undergone several changes since its creation, but those changes have never been reviewed in the particular context of this case. Because the DNA statute has changed, and because some of those changes were because of this case, we find that it would be prudent for this Court to take time to fully review the changes in the statute as they pertain to this case.”
As I have argued for number of days now - Texas cannot hang itself by not reviewing their very own addition to the penal code SB122. My guess is that Skinner will get his due process respected and DNA ill be tested once the 5th CCA "fully reviews the changes..."
But ask yourself, Lisa Rae, why wasn't this evidence he wants analyzed NOW analyzed b4 trial?
Bcz it's incriminating, rather than exculpatory?
It WAS his decision to decline analysis of the evidence, NOT his lawyer's.
I wouldn't trust our "judicial" system to tie my shoes. What I DO trust is the Holy Bible, and the Holy Bible COMMANDS us to have TWO EYEWITNESSES for any conviction, much less a death penalty conviction.
THAT I trust. "strong circumstantial evidence" is exactly what got us into the jam we're now in, namely that even though the US is only 5% of the world population, we're now 40% of the world prison population.
Having established that, I also believeve - now that Texas SB122 has passed it would be a political suicide for DA Switzer and Gov Perry to allow the execution to proceed. Given this new addition to the Texas Penal Code which allows for full testing of available DNA evidence previously untested and was enacted solely based on Mr. Skinner's Supreme Court victory, in my view Switzer has absolutely no wiggle room to continue witholding the untested crime-scene material. This now is a question of violating a consitutional right and prosecutor's noncompliance with SB122.
The Supreme Court, although judicially ducking outright granting of full DNA testing, gave Texas Legislature a clear message by allowing this lawsuit to proceed. It is apparent that some Texas Senators have a fully functioning frontal lobe: they got the message and SB122 was quickly enacted.
DA Switzer must realize that at most it will buy Mr. Skinner a year's time, small considering how long he's been on death row to date. Most important, DA Switzer and Gov Perry will be able to save face and avoid a political fallout that will haunt them for a long time. .
"The decision is always the defendants. Obviously, if Skinner knew the evidence would exonerate him, he would have insisted that it be tested. Had his counsel refused, he would have gone straight to the judge, insisting on fiurther testing and/or appointing new counsel."
dudley, here's the problem.
If you go to the official government web sites which research wrongful convictions in this country, you will see that they ALL maintain that it's less than 1%, some even less than 0.1%. And we all believe you. And we build jails and prisons by the truckloads, hire and pay and subsidize MILLIONS of judges and prosecutors and public defenders and lawyers, and provide retirement benefits which BANKRUPTED this entire nation.
Then all of a sudden Barry Scheck testifies before Congress that "more than 50%" of those in our jails and prisons who were INVESTIGATED, ARRESTED, TRIED, CONVICTED, SENTENCED, AND IMPRISONED were found to be INNOCENT by DNA testing. A defense attorney tells me that this "more than 50% actually means more than 75%!!
do I believe YOU, dudley?
NOT A SINGLE WORD OF IT.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE THERE'S AT LEAST A 75% PROBABILITY THAT you are *wrong*.
Of course you don't want science to prove you wrong. Why not? Because this is clearly your RELIGION, and nothing more.
My analysis is correct, Scheck's is not. No need to believe it. Research it.
I think the Innocent Project has found nearly 250 prisoners excluded by DNA, when at any given time, there are 6 million active criminals within the system, 2 million in jail, 4 million on probation or parole, with about a 700,000/year turnover. or maybe around 12 million or so, during the 30 year period which covers the perod of time within which those DNS exclusion innocents were incarcerated.
Of course, I was 100% accurate on the facts in the Skinner case, so, although you don't believe a word of it, it just so happens you are 100% wrong on your analysis, factually.
You wrongly assesed that I MIGHT have a 75% probability of bewing wrong. Youv'e messed up the reality of Sceck's conclusions.
But, you gave me a 25% probabiity of being right and you were correct. I was 100% correct and fall within that 25%.
Fact check. That's what I do.
You answered the wrong question. You cited the wrong data. You never addressed the original point. You CLAIM Scheck is wrong, but provided no proof whatsoever.
A "Fact check" done the way a liberal always does a fact check is not a fact check.
Only a very small percent of your "6 million active criminals within the system" ever have DNA evidence to be tested in the first place. The police are actively scrounging their files to toss out as much of what's left in order to cover their hides. And what Scheck TESTIFIED to Congress about were JUST the cases that they investigated.
Yes, this is a SMALL sample size. But it's a window into just how INEPT American public servants have become. You're an example of just how ARROGANT they've become.
It's purely unconscionable to deny this DNA test even IF he's as guilty as .ELL!
Skinner refused additonal DNA testing, pre trial, because he knew it would harm him even more, the only reason for such a rejection.
TheSkinner efforts, now, are to game the system and extend his life, fairly standard anti death penalty norms. His appeals, whcih can't succeed, are based upon opening up an entirely based on extending the already exensive appellate review, to allow any defendant to game the system, to say, even though my original trial startegy was to deny that evidence, because it would hurt me, I don't lkike the outcome of my trial, so I want a do over, in re trial or appeals, to, now, introduce the evidence I rejected, and get a chance to relitigate, based upon the choices I made at tiral.
Criminals, defense counsel, anti death penalty activists and the like are drooling over this possibility, if we get a guilty verdict at trial, we can relitigate, later, based upon a new strategy, that he had once rejected.
Criminal gold!
The state must try to stop it, as they have stated in the appelate record.
Defense counsel are prgmatic enough to explain to their clients, you are going to lose, but, we may have a second bite at the apple, later, if we follow this strategy. Not on;y does the guilty crimoinal then get a second chance, which is always better than one, there is the additonal benefit of sticking it to the man, the criminal will cost the state and its citizens much more money and the defense attorneys will make more money - a win/win for the criminal side.
But, Hannah, look at what you are saying, Skinner would have asked for the additonal DNS testing, pre trial, if he knew it was going to prove his innocence. Everyone knows that. Therefore, everyone knows that Skinner rejected the additonal DNA testing, pre trial, because he knew it would hurt him - the only reason he rejected further testing, which had a lot to do with the fact that the prior DNA testing already pointed to a guilty Skinner.
Understand.
That is why the state is fighting this new avenue of appeals, based only upon its purpose being to game the system, again, as well as only being a delay of Skinner's execution, which, so far, has been successful
Skinner DID request DNA testing at his trial. However, he was railroaded by his attorney (who was, by the way, a former prosecutor who had previously been caught stealing money seized in a drug case). His attorney had actually been the prosecutor against Skinner in an assault case a few years prior. He made a strategic decision, in what he claimed was Skinner's best interest, to ignore his client's request and NOT to test all of the available DNA evidence.
Secondly: no, the guilty criminal does not get a second chance and cost the state and citizens much more money. The defense will foot the entire bill for DNA testing, and it will only take a matter of months. If TX had just tested the DNA ten years ago, taxpayers would not have needed to support Skinner on death row for over a decade.
I don't know if Skinner is innocent or guilty-- but I do know that to leave potentially exculpatory evidence untested in a capital case would be absolutely unconscionable.
To begin with: You stated, incorrectly, that Skinner did not request DNA testing at his original trial. That is false. His court-appointed attorney (who had previously been a prosecutor prior to being disgraced and disbanded after stealing money seized in a drug raid) made a strategic decision, in what he claims was Skinner's best interest, to ignore his clients' pleas for the DNA to be tested.
To your second point: you say that defendants are trying to get a second chance, and while doing so, "stick it to the man" by costing the state and taxpayers more money. That could not be further from the truth. In fact, if the state of Texas had simply allowed DNA testing over a DECADE ago, Skinner's guilt or innocence would be confirmed, and taxpayers would not have been paying to support him on death row (which is must costlier than a normal prison cell) for 10 years+. Furthermore, as the DNA tests are concerned, the defense has offered to foot the entire bill, and testing will take a few months at most.
The notion that someone can be complacent in a state-sanctioned murder without testing all exculpatory evidence is truly frightening.
It is just basic common sense to test DNA evidence when it is available and has never before been tested – particularly when the untested evidence includes important DNA found at the crime scene.
Answer this question--why did Skinner decline to have this evidence analyzed for trial?
How is it that he thought that it couldn't exonerate him THEN, but that it can NOW?
Don't you think that if Skinner & lawyers believed that this evidence would get him acquitted, that THEY'D HAVE USED IT TO DO SO?
How is it that it can be incriminating @ trial, & exculpatory NOW?
I don't get that; do you?
It was crucial in convicting him, as reviewed, below.
Then, Skinner decided, also pre trial, that he would deny further testing of additional DNA evidence because Skinner knew that additional results would further hurt Skinner's case.
That is, of course, the only reason Skinner would stop further testing.
Now, in a successful effort to delay his execution, even more, Skinner files motions to test the material he previously rejected additional testing for.
Skinner wants to live longer, just as his 3 murder vicitms, Twila and her sons, did.
Of course, if Skinner succeeds, this sets a precedent that no matter what choices a defendant makes for trial strategy, pre trial and at trial, and if those decisions result in conviction, then the defendant, if they managed their pretrial decsions just so, can go back and say, wait a minute, I don't like the outcome of my trial, 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 all criminals and defense counsel are drooling over, for very good and obvious reasons.
The precedent that this *should* set, regardless of outcome, is that *all* DNA evidence should be tested from the start, especially if the death penalty is on the table.
You are in error on both points.
The decision is always the defendants. Obviously, if Skinner knew the evidence would exonerate him, he would have insisted that it be tested. Had his counsel refused, he would have gone straight to the judge, insisting on fiurther testing and/or appointing new counsel.
Knowing more DNA testing would hurt him, Skinner decided not to test additonal evidence. This is clear.
Defense and prosecution cannot be compelled to test evidence that neither wants tested or to present evidence that neither wants presented.
This is also clear.
As for the precendent set, should Skinner succeed, I welcome it. This is a death penalty case. This man should not be killed because he trusted his attorneys, who never believed in his innocence to begin with, and therefore made a bad "trial strategy". That you believe the man should pay with his life because he listened to his ill-informed lawyers is disgusting. Once the man is executed, there is no do-over. Precedent or not.
You miss reality.
The decision is always the defendants. Obviously, if Skinner knew the evidence would exonerate him, he would have insisted that it be tested. Had his counsel refused, he would have gone straight to the judge, insisting on fiurther testing and/or appointing new counsel.
Knowing more DNA testing would hurt him, Skinner decided not to test additonal evidence. This is clear.