Retired Federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin posts, "Supreme Court Grants Stay of Execution of Henry Skinner," at Huffington Post.
It is difficult to imagine what it must mean for someone scheduled for execution to believe that they are innocent and that they are going to die nonetheless. One half hour before Henry Skinner was to be executed, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed his execution. I found myself sitting at the computer for hours waiting for a decision by the Court or the Governor. I cannot conceive what that same time period must have been like for Mr. Skinner.
I have been advocating, as have many others, that DNA testing should be conducted in his case either to exonerate him or confirm his guilt. Inconceivably, the prosecution and the Texas courts have rejected his petitions. Evidence exists that will either prove his innocence or his guilt, but he has consistently been denied access to that information.
Judge Sarokin's earlier writing on the case is noted here and here.
Shamai Leibowitz post's "Supreme Court Stays Execution of Skinner; Will They Take the Only Logical and Just Step and Grant Certiorari?" at his Pursuing Justice blog.
In an 11th-hour intervention, the Supreme Court today prevented the State of Texas from executing Hank Skinner, and issued a stay of the execution [Court order] to allow the Justices more time to consider whether to grant certiorari.
Thank God, the values of integrity, decency and justice prevailed in the minds of the Supremes. Our society has been spared, temporarily, the terrible shame of murdering a man despite nagging doubts of his guilt, caused by critically-important DNA evidence that was left untested.
More from Leibowitz on the Skinner case at Pursuing Justice.
At True/Slant, Steve Weinberg posts, "Texas did not execute Hank Skinner, but why is so much last-minute drama the norm?"
My point for today is this: Why has the practice of last-minute reprieves–or denial of reprieve requests–the norm? Why does anybody in a supposedly civilized society tolerate this way of doing business with death? Everyb0dy involved with the Skinner case knew about the execution date way in advance. Why not litigate the possibility of a reprieve and a new evidentiary hearing weeks ago, or at least a few days ago?
Skinner might seem like an unsympathetic character, and he might be guilty of murder or he might be innocent or he might fall somewhere in between–at the murder scene but not the murderer, for example. But why should he suffer from uncertainty about whether he will die by order of the Texas governor on the date scheduled for the execution? Why should the relatives and friends of the murder victims also suffer from such uncertainty?
There is no inexorable reason in the law or in common sense. Why should last-minute reprieves ever again be thought of as humane or logical?
His earlier post on the Skinner case is noted here.
Earlier coverage begins with the preceding post; next, Larry King's coverage
Comments