Brandi Grissom writes, "U.S. Supreme Court Keeps Hank Skinner Alive, Again," for the Texas Tribune.
Now, Skinner must prove to the federal district court that he is entitled to DNA testing. That court will decide whether Texas courts have arbitrarily — and unconstitutionally — applied the state's 2001 law that allows post-conviction DNA testing. "The heart of the case is going to be decided in the next round of litigation in federal court," Owen said.
And:
Joseph Hoffmann, a death penalty expert and law professor at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, described the ruling today as technical and not particularly surprising. For Skinner, the decision was just one of many hurdles the death row inmate must still overcome before he can get access to the DNA testing he seeks. "He's quite a ways from actually getting his sentence or conviction overturned," Hoffmann said.
The bigger question that the Supreme Court has not finally resolved — what minimum due process states are required to provide when it comes to DNA testing — remains unanswered, Hoffmann said. But it is possible, he said, that the Pampa murder case could return to the high court and be the one the justices use to answer that long-standing question. "There's still a long way to go," he said.
I want to note Brandi Grissom's early coverage of the issues in the Skinner case, linked in the post, "Hank Skinner and Post-Conviction DNA Testing." Her two-part series in January 2010, brought the case to the attention of many for the first time.
Both the Austin American-Statesman and the Dallas Morning News carry the AP report, "U.S. Supreme Court rules for Texas death row inmate who wants DNA testing."
The ruling was a victory for the University of Texas Law School's Capital Punishment Clinic, in which students and faculty members work on capital cases. UT law professor Rob Owen is serving as Skinner's lead lawyer in the appeals.
"We look forward to making our case in federal court that Texas' inexplicable refusal to grant Mr. Skinner access to evidence for DNA testing is fundamentally unfair and cannot stand," Owen said.
Edward Dawson, an attorney for Gray County District Attorney Lynn Switzer, whose office prosecuted Skinner's capital murder case, said he was disappointed with the ruling but described it as "a pretty narrow decision on the procedural point."
"We think it left open the question of whether or not Skinner can actually get access to the evidence," Dawson said. "I think there are some strong arguments that he ultimately may not be able to."
Michael Landauer posts, "Hank Skinner decision a step toward truth-seeking," at the Dallas Morning News.
The Supreme Court's decision today is a victory on the path toward truth-seeking. It's often been said by Sharon Keller and others on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that finality is the ultimate goal in the appeals process. That's why so many of their death penalty rulings are so narrowly focused on what procedures were followed and when.
But today's ruling opens the door to a civil rights action that might result in a fundamental rethinking of that line of argument. Truth seeking should trump procedure.
Today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram carries, "Supreme Court backs DNA testing for Death Row inmate whose case was tried in Tarrant." Martha Deller wrote the report with material from Bloomberg News.
Skinner now is seeking DNA testing of seven sets of items, including vaginal swabs taken from Twila Busby, her fingernail clippings and two knives that were found at the house. His lawyers say his inability to get testing of those items shows the inadequacy of a 2001 Texas law that allowed post-conviction DNA testing in some circumstances.
Skinner is invoking a provision in federal law known as Section 1983, which lets individuals sue over violations of their constitutional rights by state or federal officials. A New Orleans-based federal court barred his lawsuit.
In 2009, the high court ruled that inmates don't have a "freestanding right" to demand access to DNA evidence for testing. That ruling left open the possibility that inmates could use Section 1983 to seek DNA access when their rights haven't been adequately protected by state procedures.
The latest case turned on whether the court viewed Skinner's request as an attack on his long-since finalized conviction. The justices have previously said Section 1983 doesn't authorize lawsuits that, if successful, would undermine a state-court conviction.
Ginsburg said DNA testing wouldn't "necessarily imply" that his conviction was invalid.
"While test results might prove exculpatory, that outcome is hardly inevitable," she wrote. "Results might prove inconclusive or they might further incriminate Skinner."
Allan Turner writes, "High court OKs DNA challenge for Texan," for the Houston Chronicle.
Skinner was only steps from Texas' execution chamber last March when the Supreme Court issued a stay in order to take up the case. Requests for DNA testing typically are filed has habeas corpus cases, meaning that the ultimate goal is to free an inmate from custody.
For 10 years, Skinner made unsuccessful attempts to have untested items subjected to DNA scrutiny. His most recent effort was filed as a civil rights case. Federal appeals courts have differed over whether such cases can be filed under civil rights law.
The high court today reiterated that in cases where a prisoner's release from custody is the goal, filing a habeas corpus case is the only remedy. But Skinner's case qualifies as a civil rights matter because it only seeks to pursue DNA testing, which, Ginsburg wrote, "may prove exculpatory, inculpatory or inconclusive."
Skinner's case became an international cause célèbre in anti-death penalty circles after Chicago journalism students found new witnesses and pointed to evidence that had not been DNA tested.
Not from Texas, but with a local focus, Northwestern University's North by Northwestern carries, "Supreme Court rules in favor of Medill Innocence Project inmate," by Nick Castele.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of inmate Hank Skinner, a Texas death row inmate whose case the Medill Innocence Project has researched since 2000. The court found that all convicted prisoners, like Skinner, had the right to request DNA testing on evidence that was not used in the original trial.
“I’m overjoyed,” Innocence Project director David Protess said. “I’ve been waiting 11 years for this. So i’m glad that they saw the justice in our arguments, and the evidence we developed, and Hank Skinner is finally going to have the opportunity to prove his innocence.”
Skinner was sentenced to death in Texas in 1995 for the murder of his girlfriend and her two adult sons. The Medill Innocence Project began work on the Skinner case in March 2000, when students uncovered physical evidence witnesses said was critical to the case.
The evidence includes a rape kit, fingernail clippings from the female victim, the murder weapons and a windbreaker found near the murder scene covered in blood and hair. The prosecution did not use this evidence in Skinner’s trial and refused to grant his attorneys access to it.
At the heart of the case was the question of whether federal civil rights law allowed Skinner to access that evidence, which supporters believe might implicate another suspect, Robert Donnell, who was killed in a 1997 car crash. Now, Skinner’s attorneys will proceed with a case in federal court to determine his guilt or innocence using the new evidence.
“It’s a landmark case,” Protess said. He said that the Supreme Court established that all convicted prisoners have a right to request tests of previously-untested DNA evidence.
Earlier Skinner coverage begins with the preceding post.
Comments