Brandi Grissom writes, "Justice Delayed," for the Texas Tribune.
Death row inmate Hank Skinner bought himself some time Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up a technical issue in his case, but legal experts say he's unlikely to escape his ultimate punishment.
Skinner is asking the High Court to address a procedural question on which courts across the country have split: whether he should be allowed to press a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking to have additional DNA evidence in his case tested instead of pursuing a writ of habeas corpus. The answer to what might seem to be a simple procedural question could have far-reaching implications for others like Skinner who claim innocence after they've been convicted. A habeas corpus claim requires a defendant to prove he was wrongly imprisoned. Skinner's argument is different: He's asserting a constitutional right to prove he's innocent despite a jury's decision otherwise in a trial conducted without legal error.
The Supreme Court has for years avoided ruling that such a right exists, and it won't take up that core question now. A decision in Skinner's favor, rather, would merely allow him to raise that question in lower courts under a civil rights claim.
And:
Skinner argues that DNA evidence that police gathered at the scene of the 1993 triple murder — a knife, a rape kit, a man’s windbreaker and other biological material — could show he is innocent. The material was never tested because other DNA evidence that was tested had helped to implicate Skinner, and his original trial attorney did not want to take the chance that more testing would do the same. An earlier appeal of Skinner's based on claims his original lawyer was ineffective failed. And Texas courts have denied Skinner's requests under habeas corpus laws to test the evidence. But in March — about an hour before he was set to walk into the death chamber — the Supreme Court issued a stay, and now it will decide whether to allow him to proceed under federal civil rights law.
Skinner’s lawyers filed the civil rights lawsuit — alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by the state’s unwillingness to allow him access to the untested DNA evidence — as his options under habeas corpus were running out. The Fifth Circuit Court rejected his case. The court said Skinner’s pursuit of DNA evidence is aimed at getting his sentence overturned and so it must be a habeas case, not a civil rights case. Skinner’s lawyers argue that he should be allowed to bring the case under civil rights laws because the DNA testing wouldn’t necessarily lead to a reversal of his conviction. There’s no guarantee that he would be granted testing by the lower federal courts. Even if lower courts were to order testing — and the results showed he was innocent — that doesn’t mean automatically Skinner would be taken off death row, his attorneys argue.
Gray County District Attorney Lynn Switzer, who is named in the lawsuit and is the most recent prosecutor to deal with Skinner's case, released a statement Monday expressing frustration with the case, which has dragged on for more than 15 years. In the statement, published online by KVII in Amarillo, Switzer said that she remains in contact with the victims' family and friends, and they oppose allowing additional DNA testing. Skinner had a fair trial, she said, and the jury's decision should be respected. "If defendants are allowed to 'game the system' then we will never be able to rely on the finality of the judgments entered in their cases," Switzer said.
Habeas corpus claims typically are ones that could lead to a defendant's sentence being overturned after proving that he was wrongfully imprisoned. Civil rights claims, on the other hand, usually allow a defendant to prove his constitutional rights were violated in some way during or after trial and don't always seek to reverse his sentence. Five circuit courts allow defendants to bring DNA testing requests under federal civil rights law, but two circuit courts — including the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, which has jurisdiction over Texas and Skinner's case — require such claims to be filed under habeas corpus laws.
Grissom's two-part series in the Texas Tribune in January, noted here and here, brought the facts of the case to the attention of many people for the first time.
"Supreme Court to review Texas death row case," is the title of Michael Graczyk's AP report, via the Austin American-Statesman.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether a Texas death row inmate should have access to evidence for DNA testing that he says could clear him of three murders.
The justices said they will use the case of Hank Skinner, who was as little as an hour away from being executed earlier this year, to decide whether prisoners may use a federal civil rights law to get DNA testing that was not performed before their convictions.
Federal appeals courts around the country have decided the issue differently.
Skinner's lawyer, Rob Owen, said having the case accepted was "the necessary first step to our eventually obtaining the DNA testing that Mr. Skinner has long sought.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has, "U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas Death Row inmate's case," by Dave Montgomery.
In hearing Skinner's case, the nine justices could decide whether prisoners are empowered to file federal civil-right lawsuits to force DNA testing after their convictions. The decision could give hundreds of prisoners a powerful legal avenue involving DNA evidence, legal experts say.
"It's extremely significant for the Supreme Court to hear this case," said Cory Session of Fort Worth, policy director of the Innocence Project of Texas. "That gives us a lot of hope for other cases down the pike."
Session is the brother of Tim Cole, who died in prison for a sexual assault he didn't commit. The actual assailant confessed to the crime, and Cole was ultimately cleared by DNA testimony and exonerated. Gov. Rick Perry granted Cole a posthumous pardon this year.
Skinner's case received national attention after the Medill Innocence Project at Chicago's Northwestern University began investigating and interviewed a star witness who recanted her testimony. Skinner said the real killer was Busby's uncle, Robert Donnell, who had a violent streak and made unwanted sexual advances toward Busby, according to media reports. Donnell was killed in a car wreck in 1997.
"High court DNA decision gives Texas killer hope," by Allan Turner in the Houston Chronicle.
The high court stayed Skinner's March 24 execution just one hour before he was to be put to death. The Pampa man's case became an international cause celebre among death penalty opponents after Chicago journalism students found new witnesses and pointed to potentially important evidence that had not been DNA tested.
Skinner consistently has maintained innocence.
Skinner's lead attorney, Robert Owen of the University of Texas' Capital Punishment Center, said the decision to take up the case is “the necessary first step to our eventually obtaining the DNA evidence that Mr. Skinner has long sought.”
Over a period of 10 years, Owen said in his petition to the court, Skinner has made repeated efforts to obtain DNA testing through habeas corpus petitions. Bloody clothing and other evidence that were tested for DNA provided mixed results for Skinner's case.
“We look forward to the opportunity to persuade the court that if a state official arbitrarily denies a prisoner access to evidence for DNA testing, the prisoner should be allowed to challenge that decision in a federal civil rights lawsuit,” Owen said.
"Court to hear Texas death row inmate DNA case," is the Reuter's dispatch.
"Hank Skinner case headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Medill Innocence Project student reporting will go before the court for the first time," is the title of Brian Rosenthal's report in the Daily Northwestern.
Two months after coming within 47 minutes of being executed and 10 years after enlisting the help of the Medill Innocence Project, Henry “Hank” Skinner saw his chances of proving his innocence dramatically improve Monday.
In a two-line, unsigned order, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear oral arguments on Skinner’s case, probably during the court’s 2010 term, which begins in October. It will be the first case involving a “heavy” amount of Innocence Project reporting to go to the high court, though it has been involved in two other Supreme Court cases, said Medill Prof. David Protess, who leads the project.
The Supreme Court accepts only about 1 percent of requests to hear a case, Northwestern political science Prof. Mark Iris said.
“This is like winning the lottery,” Protess said. “It is a terrific development, and my students and I who have investigated this case for 10 years are thrilled.”
Twelve NU students, including four current ones, developed most of the evidence in the brief filed with the Supreme Court, he said.
At issue in this case is whether the 47-year-old Skinner, who in March found out his execution was being delayed while eating his last meal, is entitled under federal civil rights law to request DNA tests on biological evidence, Protess said.
The Skinner case was also mentioned in national stories on yesterday's Supreme Court actions. Adam Liptak's "Black Firefighters’ Claim Was Timely," Justices Say," in the New York Times has, "DNA Evidence."
The court agreed to hear an appeal from Hank Skinner, a death row inmate in Texas who seeks access to DNA evidence that he says could prove his innocence. In March, the court granted a stay of execution less than an hour before Mr. Skinner was to be put to death for the murder of his girlfriend and her two sons.
Prosecutors have blocked Mr. Skinner’s requests to test blood, fingernail scrapings and hair found at the scene of the killings. Mr. Skinner maintains he was sleeping on a sofa in a stupor induced by vodka and codeine when the killings took place on New Year’s Eve in 1993.
Robert C. Owen, one of Mr. Skinner’s lawyers, said the court’s decision to hear the case, Skinner v. Switzer, No. 09-9000, “represents the necessary first step to our eventually obtaining the DNA testing that Mr. Skinner has long sought.”
Last year, in District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, the Supreme Court rejected what it called a free-standing constitutional right of access to DNA evidence. Mr. Skinner sued under a federal civil rights law known as Section 1983, and the immediate legal question before the court is whether a suit under that law is permissible here.
Mr. Owen said he hoped “to persuade the court that if a state official arbitrarily denies a prisoner access to evidence for DNA testing, the prisoner should be allowed to challenge that decision in a federal civil rights lawsuit.”
Joan Biskupic has a brief item in, "2nd ruling on firefighter tests, death-row decision," in today's USA Today. There is also a mention of the case in the Los Angeles Times report, "Supreme Court backs black applicants in firefighter discrimination suit," written by David Savage.
Radley Balko writes, "Supreme Court Grants Cert to Hank Skinner," at his Hit & Run blog at Reason.com.
The Court has already ruled that there is no constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing, but Skinner's claim is that he's entitled to the testing under federal civil rights law.
Interestingly, it was Justice Scalia who first stayed Skinner's execution in March. Scalia has written in a couple of opinions now that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the government from executing an innocent person.
I wrote about Skinner's case in February.
Earlier coverage begins with this post.
Comments