"IF I WERE HANK SKINNER, I WOULD FEEL OBVIOUSLY RELIEVED THAT THE SUPREME COURT HALTED MY EXECUTION AN HOUR BEFORE MY SCHEDULED DEATH. I WOULD ALSO RETAIN AT LEAST A SCINTILLA OF HOPE THAT A MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES WOULD UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF TESTING EVIDENCE. BUT I WOULD NOT HARBOR FEELINGS OF OPTIMISM."
STEVE WEINBERG; Steve Weinberg, publisher of the "In Justice" blog, describes himself as: "Investigative reporter since 1969, starting on daily newspapers, moving to magazines, then to writing books. In 1978, I decided to reject the world of regular paychecks and freelance for newspapers and magazines while continuing to write nonfiction books. Since 1976, I have been active in an international group called Investigative Reporters and Editors (www.ire.org). From 1983-1990, I ran IRE day to day, and still help edit its magazine. Partly from passion and partly for mercenary reasons, I have been teaching students part-time at the University of Missouri Journalism School since 1978. As you would deduce from my trueslant.com blog, my research, writing and teaching have increasingly focused on exposing flaws in the criminal justice system, especially when those flaws lead to the imprisonment of innocent men and women."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The editor of the Texas Tribune says in a note that "Hank Skinner is set to be executed for a 1993 murder he's always maintained he didn't commit. He wants the state to test whether his DNA matches evidence found at the crime scene, but prosecutors say the time to contest his conviction has come and gone......We told the story of the murders and his conviction and sentencing in the first part of this story." Reporter Brandi Grissom, author of the Tribune series on Hank Skinner, writes: "I interviewed Henry "Hank" Watkins Skinner, 47, at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — death row — on January 20, 2010. Skinner was convicted in 1995 of murdering his girlfriends and her two sons; the state has scheduled his execution for February 24. Skinner has always maintained that he's innocent and for 15 years has asked the state to release DNA evidence that he says will prove he was not the killer."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hank Skinner, long-time resident of Death Row in a Texas prison, is waiting to learn whether the U.S. Supreme Court will rule evidence that might prove his innocence should undergo testing, or be ignored...," the post, by investigative reporter Steve Weinberg begins, under the heading, "Is the U.S. Supreme Court capable of dispensing justice after a wrongful conviction?"
"I don’t know whether Skinner is a murderer or an innocent man. But I do know that if a majority of the Supreme Court justices care about truth, they will play a role in seeing that the evidence undergoes testing," the post continues.
"The worry is that when it comes to criminal justice system malfunctions, at least five of the nine justices care less about truth than about finality.
The criminal justice systems across the United States–in state trial courts that op0erate at the county level, in state appellate courts and in federal courts–are biased in favor of finality. Put another way, after an innocent defendant has pled guilty or been convicted by a judge/jury, the presumption reigns that the case should be over, forever.
Finality is a virtue most of the time–nobody should want cases to drag on and on after the original disposition. But the worship of finality ignores the frequency of wrongful convictions in some jurisdictions around the nation.
Those who pay close attention to the U.S. Supreme Court understand that much of the time, a majority of the current justices (plus some recently retired or deceased justices) have emphasized finality beyond reason. That is worrisome enough. Add to that worry the lack of professional integrity demonstrated by some of the justices in monumental cases, with Bush v. Gore during 2001 being perhaps the most notable. Issuing a 5-4 ruling, the slim majority violated legal precedent and common sense by making George W. Bush president before meaningful recounts in a close election could occur.
The alarming lack of integrity demonstrated by that ruling is not simply my personal opinion. Justice John Paul Stevens–the senior member of the court by chronological age and length of service–wrote for publication, “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” Stevens–a Republican lawyer appointed by a Republican president–also wrote that the majority ruling could “only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land.”
If I were Hank Skinner, I would feel obviously relieved that the Supreme Court halted my execution an hour before my scheduled death. I would also retain at least a scintilla of hope that a majority of the justices would understand the importance of testing evidence. But I would not harbor feelings of optimism."
The post can be found at:
http://trueslant.com/steveweinberg/2010/03/27/is-the-u-s-supreme-court-capable-of-dispensing-justice-after-a-wrongful-conviction/
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
