Will Governor Perry ignore another claim of innocence?
Larry Swearingen is set to be executed on Tuesday for a 1988 rape/murder in Montgomery County. Like many, Swearingen claims he is innocent; unlike most though, he is probably right. And like several before him, his claim of innocence may get lost in the ridiculous maize of legal rules limiting such claims. This is truly an area where form prevails over substance.
The evidence against Swearingen was focused on time of death. The victim was not found until a month after she disappeared. Swearingen was in jail most of that time, having been picked up on tickets 3 days after she disappeared. At trial the State's expert concluded she could have been killed, and her body dumped the same day she disappeared, which meant Swearingen could have committed the offense. The expert, Harris County Medical expert Joye Carter, now says that she was killed at least one week after she disappeared - when Swearingen was in jail. Several other experts have also examined the evidence and concluded she could not have been killed while Swearingen was still out. Those experts included a Gil Grissom type who examined insect larvae.
You would think that is enough, but there is more. Blood samples were found under the victim's fingernails, as well as a foreign pubic hair in the vaginal swab. Those came from someone other than Swearingen, although at the time they could not match it.
Swearingen has already taken his claims to the Court of Criminal Appeals, and they have been rejected. Although the Court acts like they are concerned about innocence, and spend money on innocence training, they seldom take action when a valid claim comes before them. They want everyone to believe they are truly concerned about innocence (they even created a judicial integrity unit), but the facts speak for themselves. But that's for another post.
Swearingen has petitions pending in federal court, but those are being opposed by Greg Abbott, the Texas Attorney General. He has taken the predictable position that Swearingen has not met the almost insurmountable burden to obtain relief in federal court. He also has a request for clemency/commutation pending with Governor Perry.
This will not be the first time Governor Perry has presented with a claim of innocence. Cameron Willingham presented evidence that the arson he was convicted of was not arson. A number of experts have since agreed, and the case is currently being studied by a State commission. As with other petitions, I would expect governor Perry to take the politically popular position - after all, he he has been convicted. We wouldn't want to appear to be soft on criminals.
As I get older, I start worrying more about things eternal. As most Christians, I believe we will have to account for what we have done on earth. Although I'm not always successful, I try to keep that in mind when making difficult decisions. I don't know how you can explain a decision to go forward with an execution in the face of a legitimate claim of innocence. Somehow I don't think legal arguments are going to carry much weight. I realize politicians don't think like that, but maybe they should.
I also fail to see what harm there is postponing the execution, and having a full and complete hearing on this claim - which hasn't happened yet. You would think the system wants to make sure we get it right - but those involved in post-conviction litigation know that isn't something the courts even give lip service to. We need a better way to address these claims; preferably one that removes the political aspects. Let's hope the Legislature will make some inroads this session; Sen.Rodney Ellis has carried the torch for the last few sessions, and continues to do so.
For Larry Swearingen, and all those working or him, I pray you are successful.
