One of the lessons of the Goudge Inquiry was the ease with which innocent persons could be convicted of murder strictly on the basis of the pathological evidence on questions such as the time and cause of death - which all too often was wrong.
Many Canadians reacted in horror to the spectre of innocent parents put through the horror of being charged with murdering their own children because of faulty pathological evidence.
That sense of horror is compounded where there is the possibility that an innocent person is being executed by the state in circumstances where there are strong suggestions that the pathologists got it wrong.
The Larry Swearingen case is very much in point;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a "procedural history" of Larry Swearingen's battle against the death penalty which was set out by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in a news release;
The history shows a lengthy trail of rejected appeals which brought Swearingen closer and closer to his death - until the appeal court finally intervened;
It also shows a number of crucial hearings where he was fighting for his life without a lawyer.
Jan. 26, 1999 – A Montgomery County grand jury indicted Swearingen for kidnapping-related capital murder.
Nov. 2, 1999 – He was reindicted, with rape-related capital murder added.
June 28, 2000 – A jury found him guilty of capital murder.
July 11, 2000 – After a separate punishment hearing, the court sentenced him to death.
Mar. 11, 2002 – Swearingen filed his initial state application for habeas corpus relief.
Mar. 26, 2003 – The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence.
May 21, 2003 – The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Swearingen’s initial application for habeas corpus relief. He filed his petition for habeas corpus relief in the federal court, Southern District, Houston Division.
Oct. 19, 2004 – In the trial court, Swearingen, acting without a lawyer, sought additional DNA testing.
May 21, 2004 – Swearingen filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a Houston U.S. district Court.
April 7, 2005 – The trial court denied his request for additional testing.
April 8, 2005 – Still acting without counsel, in connection with this testing request, Swearingen sought mandamus review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
May 20, 2005 – Again acting without counsel, Swearingen filed a second application for mandamus review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
June 8, 2005 – The Court of Criminal Appeals denied both requests for mandamus review.
Sept. 1, 2005 – Swearingen filed petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court asking that Court to review the state court’s denial of his second mandamus request.
Sept. 8, 2005 – In federal habeas corpus proceedings, the district court denied relief but allowed Swearingen to appeal.
Sept. 9, 2005 – Swearingen filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Feb. 1, 2006 – The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Swearingen’s appeal in connection with his request for DNA testing.
Feb. 21, 2006 – Swearingen sought rehearing from the Court of Criminal Appeals in connection with his DNA testing request.
Mar. 27, 2006 – The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review of state court’s denial of mandamus review.
May 10, 2006 – The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his request for rehearing on his DNA appeal.
July 31, 2006 – The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief.
Nov. 22, 2006 – Swearingen filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jan. 22, 2007 – Swearingen filed a second application for state habeas corpus relief.
Jan. 23, 2007 – The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the application for a hearing.
Feb. 20, 2007 – In federal court, after the Fifth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review.
Jan. 16, 2008 – As for Swearingen’s second state habeas corpus application, when the case returned after remand, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief.
Jan. 22, 2008 – Swearingen filed a third state application for habeas corpus relief.
Mar. 5, 2008 – The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the third application for a hearing.
July 31, 2008 – Swearingen, without an attorney, filed a third application for mandamus review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Nov. 26, 2008 – In a separate action, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Swearingen’s motion to recuse, filed without an attorney.
Dec. 4, 2008 – Swearingen, without an attorney, for the fourth time sought mandamus review with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Dec. 17, 2008 – As for his third state habeas corpus application, upon return after remand, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief. The court also rejected Swearingen’s third request for mandamus review. The convicting court set the execution date for January 27, 2009.
Jan. 6, 2009 – The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected his fourth request for mandamus review.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
