That's the title of an editorial from the Amarillo Globe-News Saturday edition.
Hank Skinner won a big court fight this week in Washington, D.C.
So did those who believe Skinner should be executed for killing a Pampa woman and her two sons on New Year's Eve, 1993.
Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Skinner's favor very well could prove beyond a doubt that he is guilty of the crime for which he's been convicted.
And that, by definition, would be justice served.
And:
So, let's proceed with this civil rights lawsuit in federal court and let us determine once and for all who committed this heinous crime.
The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina carries the editorial column, "DNA stories, waiting to be told." It's written by Steve Ford, the editorial page editor.
DNA has figured in several high-profile cases where people who have spent years in prison - convicted by juries supposedly beyond a reasonable doubt - finally were cleared.
In that respect, DNA testing shapes up both as a prosecutor's best friend and worst enemy. If suitable evidence is available, it can point a damning finger at someone who has committed a violent crime. But if it surfaces on down the road, it can expose a prosecution as having been terribly flawed. The nightmare would be proof of someone's innocence, and someone else's guilt, coming to light after a person wrongfully convicted had been executed.
A thorough DNA testing regimen presumably would help prevent wrongful convictions in the first place. Yet as the Skinner case shows, there can be an ingrained reluctance by prosecutors to have all evidence tested. And the fact is that Skinner's own lawyers at trial were leery of what some of that evidence might have shown.
To test or not to test became more a matter of courtroom strategy than an unblinking search for the truth (not that a defendant should be expected to cooperate in incriminating himself).
Even with rigorous DNA test requirements, some violent crime scenes won't yield any relevant evidence. And defendants who can afford top-shelf lawyers typically have an advantage that other defendants don't.
The justice system may work pretty well on the whole, but when lives are at stake, the consequences of any shortcoming can be monstrously magnified. The possibility of executing an innocent person was why Illinois' governor last week agreed to make his state the latest to abolish the death penalty.
The current Texas Lawyer reports, "Prosecutors, Defense Lawyers Split on Skinner's Impact," written by Miriam Rozen.
Williamson County District Attorney John M. Bradley was one of sixTexas prosecutors who filed an amicus brief supporting Switzer. He says the opinion now creates "just another loophole for death penalty defendants" to delay their sentences.
In general, Bradley says a Texas prosecutor is limited to getting five to 10 pieces of evidence tested for DNA. But he says a defendant, even at the time Skinner was first tried, could test evidence for DNA, as long as he made a plausible case that it could provide further evidence.
Campbell "Scott" Brumley, the county attorney for Potter County who also joined the brief, says, "My concern has been for an opening of the floodgates to attack criminal convictions under §1983."
Both say they fear that the Skinner decision will open the door for other convicted inmates to file suits in federal courts — beyond the one bite at the apple that they had with habeas — to seek access to DNA after the state properly denies them that access, just to create delays.
In the majority opinion, however, Ginsburg writes, "Contrary to fears of Switzer and her amici, in the Circuits that currently allow for §1983 claims for DNA testing, there has been no flood of litigation seeking postconviction discovery of evidence associated with the questions of guilt or punishment."
David González, a partner in Austin's Sumpter & González who serves as a legislative liaison for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, agrees with the majority opinion: The courts won't be inundated with complaints similar to Skinner's, he says.
"It's going tobe limited by the cases that have something to test. Not every case has DNA," says González. He adds, "There are many folks that never want a DNA test. I mean, not all of my clients are innocent. Why is the state so afraid of just testing this stuff in the first place? Not doing so just makes us look bad."
Earlier coverage of the Skinner ruling begins at the link. The Supreme Court opinion in Skinner v. Switzer is in Adobe .pdf format.
Comments