"Gregory S. Coleman, a lawyer representing Lynn Switzer, the district attorney in Pampa, Tex., said Mr. Skinner should not be allowed to split his challenge in two by seeking evidence under the civil rights law and then attacking his conviction and sentence through habeas corpus.
That did not seem to trouble Justice Stephen G. Breyer. “What he wants is the DNA,” Justice Breyer said of Mr. Skinner. “He thinks it’s going to be exculpatory. He doesn’t know that till he gets it.”
Justice Breyer quoted with evident pleasure from a 2005 concurrence by Justice Antonin Scalia in Wilkinson v. Dotson, which allowed challenges to parole procedure to be brought under the civil rights law rather than habeas corpus.
“Dotson says that you go into habeas if winning — i.e., getting the DNA — would necessarily spell speedier release,” Justice Breyer said. “End of the matter. I’m reading to you from Justice Scalia’s concurrence, where he quotes my majority with great praise.”
Justice Scalia seemed to agree that the court’s earlier decisions tended to support Mr. Skinner’s use of the civil rights law in the case, Skinner v. Switzer, No. 09-9000. “We’ve never had a case like this,” he said, “and it’s conceivable to me that we have to expand what we said.”"............
"Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that Mr. Skinner had not sought DNA testing of the contested materials in preparation for his trial. “DNA testing was available then,” she told Mr. Owen. “You could have gotten it. Strategically your trial attorney chose not to, and so that disqualifies you from seeking it now.”
REPORTER ADAM LIPTAK: NEW YORK TIMES; Wikipedia informs us that, "Adam Liptak (born September 2, 1960 in Stamford, Connecticut) is an American journalist, lawyer and instructor in journalism[1]. He is currently the Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times. In July 2008, Liptak was assigned to take over coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court following the retirement of Linda Greenhouse who had covered the high court for nearly 30 years."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND OF APPEAL: Skinner v. Switzer, No. 09-9000, an appeal from Hank Skinner, an inmate in Texas who is seeking access to DNA evidence that he says could prove his innocence. In March, the court granted a stay of execution less than an hour before Mr. Skinner was to be put to death in the murder of his girlfriend and her two sons. Mr. Skinner seeks to test blood, fingernail scrapings and hair found at the scene of the killings. He maintains that he was sleeping on a sofa in a stupor induced by vodka and codeine when the killings took place on Dec. 31, 1993. Prosecutors say he is making his request too late. They add that testing would be pointless because "no item of evidence exists that would conclusively prove that Skinner did not commit the murder." Reporter Adam Liptak: New York Times;
BACKGROUND OF CASE: "Hank Skinner faces execution 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; 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." Texas Tribune;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"WASHINGTON — In the course of an hourlong argument at the Supreme Court on Wednesday about a death row inmate’s quest to test DNA evidence, the justices asked neither of the questions that people without legal training might have thought crucial: Why won’t Texas prosecutors consent to the testing? And could the results show that the inmate, Henry W. Skinner, is innocent of the triple murder that sent him to death row? "New York Times reporter Adam Liptak writes, in a story which appeared on October 13, 2101 under the heading, "High Court Weighs Death Row Inmate’s DNA Query."
"The justices focused instead on whether Mr. Skinner had located a path through a thicket of legal doctrines meant to limit postconviction challenges," the story continues.
"Last year, in District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, No.08-6, the court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that inmates have no freestanding right under the Constitution’s due process clause to test evidence that could prove their innocence in states without laws on DNA testing. The court and Congress have, moreover, severely limited habeas corpus challenges to convictions and sentences.
Mr. Skinner chose a third route, suing under a federal civil rights law known as Section 1983 and saying a Texas law that allows DNA testing in only some circumstances violated his rights.
That position required Mr. Skinner’s lawyer, Robert C. Owen, to maintain that his client’s goal, at least for now, was not to challenge his conviction or death sentence, as such challenges would have to be brought through a habeas petition, but simply to test the evidence.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was skeptical. “In the real world,” he said, “a prisoner who wants access to DNA evidence is interested in overturning his conviction.”
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wondered whether the Supreme Court erred in staying Mr. Skinner’s execution in March, less than hour before he was to be put to death, in light of his position that he was not currently challenging his death sentence.
“You are telling us that your attack doesn’t go to the sentence,” Justice Kennedy told Mr. Owen. “I don’t see why we don’t just lift the stay, under your view of the case.”
Mr. Skinner maintains that he was sleeping on a sofa in a vodka-and-codeine haze when his girlfriend and her two sons were killed on New Year’s Eve in 1993. Prosecutors have blocked his requests to test blood, fingernail scrapings and hair found at the scene.
Prosecutors said in their briefs that Mr. Skinner was playing games with the system, dragging out his case and seeking to impose unacceptable burdens on government resources and the victims’ dignity. They added that testing would be pointless because “no item of evidence exists that would conclusively prove that Skinner did not commit the murder.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that Mr. Skinner had not sought DNA testing of the contested materials in preparation for his trial. “DNA testing was available then,” she told Mr. Owen. “You could have gotten it. Strategically your trial attorney chose not to, and so that disqualifies you from seeking it now.”
Gregory S. Coleman, a lawyer representing Lynn Switzer, the district attorney in Pampa, Tex., said Mr. Skinner should not be allowed to split his challenge in two by seeking evidence under the civil rights law and then attacking his conviction and sentence through habeas corpus.
That did not seem to trouble Justice Stephen G. Breyer. “What he wants is the DNA,” Justice Breyer said of Mr. Skinner. “He thinks it’s going to be exculpatory. He doesn’t know that till he gets it.”
Justice Breyer quoted with evident pleasure from a 2005 concurrence by Justice Antonin Scalia in Wilkinson v. Dotson, which allowed challenges to parole procedure to be brought under the civil rights law rather than habeas corpus.
“Dotson says that you go into habeas if winning — i.e., getting the DNA — would necessarily spell speedier release,” Justice Breyer said. “End of the matter. I’m reading to you from Justice Scalia’s concurrence, where he quotes my majority with great praise.”
Justice Scalia seemed to agree that the court’s earlier decisions tended to support Mr. Skinner’s use of the civil rights law in the case, Skinner v. Switzer, No. 09-9000. “We’ve never had a case like this,” he said, “and it’s conceivable to me that we have to expand what we said.”"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/us/14scotus.html?_r=2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/09/alter-rick-perry-texas-and-the-death-penalty.html#
