Why do Courts have to force common sense on prosecutors

In this day of instaneous communication the news that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Hank Skinner's case is old news. in case you haven't heard, Skinner is sentenced to death, and has been requesting DNA testing which he claims will establish his innocence. Predicatbly, the State has opposed testing, and the courts have agreed.

I wrote before about this - in that post I compared Skinner's case with Cameron Todd Willingham, and wondered why the governor didn't learn anything from that case. You would think that with all the criticism and condemnation that case has created, you would want to avoid a repeat. Yet here we are again.

I think the vast majority of people believe that if there is evidence it should be tested. After all, what do you have to lose - other than time. If Skinner really is guilty is it all that important to execute him next month instead of next year? I understand there are some who think the process drags on too long, but look at the alternative. What if he is innocent - is speed more important than getting it right?

The only thing the State accomplishes by opposing testing is creating a controversy, and raising questions. Some will think they have something to hide - and maybe they do. Maybe they don't they grasp the concept that most of society actually believes that some people who are convicted are actually innocent. In fact, it has become common to see stories of people who have been exonerated after spending years in prison.

I realize the request in this case is being made at the last minute, and probably could have been presented earlier. Do some defendants play the system to buy time? Maybe so, but that doesn't mean they all are. Where the alternative is as final as it is here, I think you have to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt - at least where the request is not obviously frivolous.

What it really boils down to is that this is what is in the prosecutor's playbook. They have been conditioned to reject requests for testing - especially in death penalty cases. The reaction is almost automatic, and common sense is not going to get in the way. That is why it is up to the courts to occassionally legislate common sense. Let's hope they do so here.

Death watch - waiting for the call

As everyone knows, Hank Skinner is scheduled to be executed today. One of his lawyers is Rob Owen. Rob is a friend of mine, and one of the best death penalty lawyers around. It takes a special kind of lawyer to devote themselves to death penalty work. They invest themselves in their cases, and developed friendships with their clients and families. They do so knowing that in the end they are going to lose most of the time. Each time they are devastated, but they pick themselves up and go on to the next case.

It’s no surprise that most of the people sentenced to death are guilty. There are always questions about whether they deserve the death penalty, or whether they received a fair trial. Seldom do you encounter someone who is actually innocent, or at least you believe they are. The stresses associated with that are enormous. The thought that an innocent person may be executed is almost too much to grasp. Rob is in that position now. I don’t know whether Hank Skinner is guilty or not. I do know that most of those questions could be answered with just a few tests.

Rob and the other lawyers representing Hank Skinner are now basically on a death watch. They have done all they can do, and all that is left is waiting. They wait for the call from the governor’s office, which will tell them whether Hank Skinner lives or dies. It’s almost like waiting in an emergency room for the doctor to come talk to you.

Their ordeal brings back memories of my own. Memories that are not pleasant. It was not long ago that I was in the same position they are, waiting for news on Todd Willingham. I had hoped up until the final call that someone was going to step in and stop the proceedings. To this day I still do not understand how so many could look the other way at compelling evidence of innocence. Yet they did. The process and procedure was more important than the result.

I would have hoped that something was learned from Willingham. If nothing else, I always hoped that it would cause courts and government officials to look twice at claims of innocence. I know there are some who still claim Willingham was guilty, but you have to look hard to find them. The evidence of his innocence is now overwhelming. That same evidence could have been presented in a hearing if only the governor or someone would have stepped in and given him the opportunity to do so. I still don’t know how anyone can live with a decision like that. Apparently it’s not a problem.

Like everyone else I will be checking the computer frequently today to see if there is any news on this case. Frankly, I’m not hopeful. Nevertheless, you can always be surprised. My thoughts are with Rob and those with him. I know no matter what happens it will be back again and somebody will be lucky to have them for his lawyer.

Lessons not learned

There's no shortage of criticism over the impending execution of Hank Skinner in Texas. The Medellin Innocence project has been pushing for new DNA testing. A number of people have come down on Skinner's side. For more information you can go to Stand Down Texas for links to resources and coverage.

The controversy exists mainly because Skinner's previous lawyers didn't request testing of all the evidence. The State did allow testing of some evidence in 2000, apparently believing that it would confirm Skinner's guilt - it didn't.  Instead the test results raised questions about Skinner's guilt.

What bothers me about me most about this case is the complete failure to learn from history. I'm certainly not the first to point out the similarities with Cameron Todd Willingham's case. Officials and courts refused to acknowledge questions of innocence, and the debate still continues. Does the state seriously believe that the thing is not going to happen with Skinner? The case will provide even more evidence to those who believe Texas is more interested in vengeance and  procedure than justice.

Governor Perry has a chance to step in and prove everyone wrong in this case; he can grant a stay, and allow the courts another opportunity to look at - and test - the evidence. If he doesn't, it is damning evidence of his true character.

Any person with a conscience would want to avoid at all costs what happened with Willingham. I realize he has stated how convinced he is of Willingham's guilt, but no rational person can seriously believe that. Even if you believe he is guilty, no one could seriously argue that he would be convicted today without scientific evidence that the fire was intentionally set. I can't imagine anyone living with that on their conscience; if it doesn't bother you, you have to wonder if there is a conscience.

I've talked before about my religious beliefs and convictions - specifically that we are all going to answer for the decisions we make on earth. I truly believe what we do now has eternal consequences. The sad thing is that most of those who support Governor Perry - and probably the governor himself - claim to believe the same thing. I don't think you get a  pass just because you are in politics - or "following the law" and accepting the judgment of the courts. In fact, I think the power you wield makes those arguments even less successful. They sound good, but the fact is he does have the power to question those decisions.

It's clear that the decision he made on Willingham hasn't effected his political future. If anything its enhance it; he was able to survive a primary without a runoff, and is now being talked about for national office. for his sake, I hope he has thought about his future beyond politics. I don't know how things work, and if you can redeem yourself for bad decisions. personally, I believe you can. The governor has a chance to prove he learned something from Willingham - let's hope he takes advantage of it.