Opponents of the death penalty are screaming bloody murder because some of the evidence in the case in which Mr. Skinner was convicted of murder was not DNA tested. So we see headlines like Is Texas About To Execute Another Innocent Man? State officials would rather kill a prisoner than give him a DNA test. That's a bit harsh. But much of the anti-death penalty talk is advocacy, and the facts they disclose are those that shine the most favorable light on their side of the case.
In Texas a convicted person can get DNA evidence tested under certain circumstances. Among other things, the defendant has to show that it wasn't his/her fault that the test wasn't done before the initial trial. Further, and this is a tough one, there has to be a showing that "the person would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing."
Hundreds of people have been exonerated due to DNA evidence. But in the Skinner case the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that he can't get this test. Read the whole thing to get a clearer understanding of their position, but in summary, they said he can't get it now because he failed to ask for it before the original trial as a strategy in the defense of his case. The logic there is that a defendant could decline testing before trial for fear that the evidence would convince the jury to convict, but if the case went against him anyway, he could seek the test afterward because there would be nothing to lose at that point.
So it's a hard rule. A defendant needs to decide before trial whether to take the chance on testing all or some of the evidence if the prosecution didn't already do it. And in this case it appears that Mr. Skinner and his attorney didn't want to take the chance. He's on death row, so now they do.
There's much more to the case, and the testimony alone was probably enough to warrant a guilty verdict. Read the Court Of Criminal Appeals opinion for some details about the testimony.
But would it kill anyone to go ahead and DNA test the untested material? Seems like a harmless thing to do. The guy may very well be guilty, but to go ahead and conduct the test would at least shut up all those people trying to condemn the State of Texas because the State condemns killers. Or it might even point to someone else. Better safe than sorry.
Updated 5/24/2010: Supreme Court to consider case. Houston Chronicle:
Acting on a petition from condemned killer Henry W. Skinner, the U.S. Supreme Court today announced it will consider whether inmates' requests for DNA testing can be considered as civil rights claims — a question that has split the nation's top federal courts.
Comments