That's the title of Radley Balko's latest post at Reason.com. It's subtitled, "State officials would rather kill a prisoner than give him a DNA test." It's a must-read:
Henry Watkins “Hank” Skinner was supposed to be executed tomorrow, but last Tuesday a Gray County, Texas, District Court judge pushed the date back one month, to March 24. Skinner has been on Death Row in Texas since 1993, awaiting execution for the murder of his girlfriend and her two sons. He has maintained his innocence since his arrest, and investigators from the Northwestern University Journalism School’s Medill Innocence Project have shot numerous holes in the prosecution’s case. But Texas officials refuse to conduct a simple DNA test that could point to the condemned man’s innocence or cement his guilt.
Skinner's scheduled lethal injection comes shortly after Texas Gov. Rick Perry has removed sympathetic panelists from the state forensic committee's investigation into the case of Cameron Todd Willingham and replaced them with panelists critics say are stymieing the investigation. Willingham was executed in 2003 for murdering his three daughters by setting fire to his house. Nine arson experts and an investigation published in the New Yorker last year have since made a strong case that Willingham was innocent of the crime.
At the same time, Texas, a notoriously enthusiastic enforcer of the death penalty, continues to lead the nation in DNA exonerations (one county in Texas has produced more genetic exonerations than all but three states). Which makes it all the more disturbing that biological evidence from Skinner’s crime scene remains untested, at the behest of prosecutors and backed up by the courts. You’d think given recent headlines that Texas might be a bit more reluctant to execute a possibly innocent man.
And:
After a conviction, the criminal justice system tends put a premium on finality, setting a high bar for reopening or retrying old cases. Given the Willingham case and the spate of exonerations across Texas, perhaps it's time the state put less emphasis on finality, and more on certainty. DNA testing in Skinner's case may not bring us closer to closing those 1993 murders, but it will bring us closer to discovering the truth about them. In a capital case especially, that alone should be reason enough to to go through with the tests.
Earlier coverage of the Skinner case begins here.
In stark contrast, officials in Georgia have reached an agreement with lawyers for Carlton Gary for post-conviction DNA testing of evidence. Last year, the Georgia Supreme Court stayed Gary's scheduled execution so that the issue of post-conviction testing could be examined.
Bill Rankin reports, "DNA tests OK'd for 'Columbus Stocking Strangler'," in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Almost a quarter-century after he was convicted as the "Columbus Stocking Strangler," Carlton Gary has obtained the right to have DNA tests of the state's evidence.
In an order signed Friday, Muscogee County District Attorney Julia Slater and Gary's attorneys agreed to have the GBI test four semen samples taken from three women who were raped and then strangled with their nylon stockings in the late 1970s. The results should be known in about a month.
Gary, 57, was scheduled to die by lethal injection on Dec. 16, but the Georgia Supreme Court halted his execution with just four hours to spare. The court ordered a Columbus judge to convene a hearing to decide whether DNA testing, unavailable at the time of Gary's 1986 trial, should be conducted. Friday's agreement was reached before the hearing was held.
"We're happy that the state has agreed DNA testing should go forward," said one of Gary's lawyers, Jack Martin, who for years has been seeking permission to conduct such tests. "We hope a profile can be found from these items that can exonerate Mr. Gary."
Slater, the prosecutor, said she reached her decision after researching the law, reviewing the evidence and consulting with victims' families. Slater said that even though she believes the tests are not required under the law, continued opposition would prompt more appeals and could result in a court order to test evidence that is unreliable.
Earlier coverage of the Gary case begins with this post.
Comments