"Before the federal court ruled on that question, lawmakers this year made yet another change to the DNA law. The original 2001 legislation allowed testing only in cases in which DNA tests were not conducted during the original trial because the technology was unavailable or for some other reason that was not the fault of the defendant. Senator Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat who is chairman of the Innocence Project, sponsored a measure that repealed those restrictions.
Based on that change, Mr. Skinner filed a new request in September. Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office has opposed it — because the state appeals court has already twice denied testing. The Criminal Court of Appeals “found that no exculpatory test results could possibly prove Skinner’s innocence,” the state’s motion said.
In an interview this week, Mr. Ellis said he does not understand how the court could continue to deny Mr. Skinner’s request, which he said his recent legislation would allow.
But last week, without explanation, the trial court in Gray County did just that.REPORTER BRANDI GRISSOM: THE TEXAS TRIBUNE (AS PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES);
SEE THE CNN STORY PUBLISHED EARLIER TODAY FOR AN EXCELLENT UP-DATE; IT FOLLOWS THE TEXAS TRIBUNE REPORT; (HL);
----------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S VIEW: (EDITORIAL); In a rational world that values both justice and science it would be inconceivable to think that Texas would execute Hank Skinner before conducting important DNA tests that bear directly on his guilt or innocence. However, to this Blog, past history suggests that the irrational may be the order of the day - even on matters involving life and death. For a start, this is the state where Governor Rick Perry allowed the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham to proceed - even though he had been presented with a report casting serious doubt on the arson science that had been used to convict him. Secondly, this is the state where the governor did not even try to disguise raw political manoeuvres aimed at castrating the Texas Forensic Science Commission so that it would be unable to expose the rot at the heart of Willingham's conviction. Thirdly, this is the state that has been so eager to embrace DNA technology that can convict someone - yet so reluctant to use the same technology to exonerate those who have been wrongfully convicted of the most serious crimes. Lastly, Texas has shown that it values procedural correctness (the filing of court applications on time) - over certainty and human life. Governor Perry could hold off the execution - and instruct his prosecutors to back off and expedite the tests (as he very much should) - but who can be confident that this will happen? The only hope is that Perry will postpone the execution for thirty days (even if it is out of pure political expedience) - as is his power - and that the Texas courts will come to their senses and order the tests to proceed. That failing, I wonder if the anger of Americans concerned over repeated injustices leading to loss of life and liberty in their criminal justice system will ever prompt them to occupy their courts.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------
"“I have never had a case where we had to fight 10 years to get DNA tests,” said Nina Morrison, senior staff attorney at the Innocence Project, who has worked on hundreds of cases. “This kind of protracted litigation is extremely rare these days,” the Texas Tribune story by reporter Brandi Grissom published in the New York Times on November 5, 2011 under the heading, "DNA exonerations continue, but not for one man," begins, under the preface: Hank Skinner has been pleading with the state since 2001 — to no avail — to test DNA evidence he believes will prove his innocence. On Wednesday, he is scheduled to walk into the execution chamber in Huntsville to face the ultimate punishment for three murders that he maintains he did not commit."
"Mr. Skinner was convicted in 1995 of murdering his live-in girlfriend, Twila Busby, and her two sons in their home in the Panhandle town of Pampa. Texas — and most other states — did not have a post-conviction DNA testing law then. But since Mr. Skinner has been in prison, Texas has developed one of the strongest post-conviction DNA laws in the nation, and 45 inmates have been exonerated in the last decade based on test results," the story continues.
"As the Texas Legislature has expanded access to post-conviction DNA testing — since the original law was passed in 2001, legislators have loosened restrictions to DNA testing three more times — Mr. Skinner has filed new appeals. Each time, he has been rebuffed. Now, for the fourth time, he is on the verge of execution. He is awaiting a court decision on whether the most recent law, passed earlier this year, will be applied to him.
The 2001 law spelled out conditions under which inmates could get access to testing and established rules requiring law enforcement to preserve DNA evidence. Opponents, including some prosecutors and prison officials, worried that it would cause a flood of inmates to file requests. To address that concern, lawmakers adopted strict standards that required inmates to demonstrate not only that the results of DNA tests would prove their innocence but also would have prevented their being prosecuted.
Some DNA evidence was presented at Mr. Skinner’s 1995 trial, and it showed that his blood was at the crime scene. But Mr. Skinner said that he had cut his hand on glass that had broken when someone else violently attacked his girlfriend and her sons. Mr. Skinner maintains that during the killings he was unconscious on the couch, intoxicated from a mixture of codeine and vodka (a toxicology report confirmed that he had high amounts of both in his system).
But because his lawyers feared the results might be incriminating, they did not seek testing on a rape kit, biological material from his girlfriend’s fingernails, sweat from a man’s jacket, a bloody towel or knives from the crime scene.
After the 2001 law passed, Mr. Skinner filed his first request for testing on the items, asserting that DNA evidence could prove that another man committed the crime.
In 2003, the state Court of Criminal Appeals denied Mr. Skinner’s request, arguing that he did not meet the standards for testing, citing, among other issues, the requirement that he demonstrate that he would not have been prosecuted based on the new DNA results. “That’s essentially an impossible standard to meet,” said Rob Owen, Mr. Skinner’s lawyer and a clinical-law professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
Mike Ware, supervisor of the innocence project at Texas Wesleyan School of Law in Fort Worth who previously worked in the Dallas County district attorney’s office, said many inmates experienced the same stumbling block. The statute allowed district attorneys to block testing by telling courts that DNA results would not have prevented their prosecuting the inmate.
Lawmakers also realized it was an unreachable standard, said Representative Scott Hochberg, Democrat of Houston. “Despite the fact that we had worked very hard and passed the first bill, nothing happened,” he said. “It resulted in no changes at all.”
In 2003, Mr. Hochberg sponsored a bill that eliminated the requirement that the results would have prevented prosecution.
The next change in the law came in 2007, when lawmakers told courts they could not deny post-conviction DNA testing solely because an inmate had pleaded guilty or confessed. “Some defendants enter pleas of guilty as business decisions, for lack of a better way to put it,” Mr. Ware said.
Mr. Skinner filed a second request for DNA testing in 2007, citing, among other arguments, the law’s expansions. The Court of Criminal Appeals again denied the motion. The court said that new DNA tests would not prove his innocence, and that he should have requested the testing at his original trial.
In March 2010, less than an hour before his last scheduled execution, the United States Supreme Court intervened. After a subsequent hearing, the high court sent Mr. Skinner’s case back to a lower federal court to decide whether Texas courts unconstitutionally applied the state’s post-conviction DNA law.
Before the federal court ruled on that question, lawmakers this year made yet another change to the DNA law. The original 2001 legislation allowed testing only in cases in which DNA tests were not conducted during the original trial because the technology was unavailable or for some other reason that was not the fault of the defendant. Senator Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat who is chairman of the Innocence Project, sponsored a measure that repealed those restrictions.
Based on that change, Mr. Skinner filed a new request in September. Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office has opposed it — because the state appeals court has already twice denied testing. The Criminal Court of Appeals “found that no exculpatory test results could possibly prove Skinner’s innocence,” the state’s motion said.
In an interview this week, Mr. Ellis said he does not understand how the court could continue to deny Mr. Skinner’s request, which he said his recent legislation would allow.
But last week, without explanation, the trial court in Gray County did just that. Mr. Skinner’s lawyers have appealed, again to the Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that the Legislature has removed enough barriers to finally allow DNA tests before he is executed.
“The case for DNA testing for Mr. Skinner has been made much stronger,” Mr. Owen said. “Common sense really seems to cry out for it.”"
The story can be found at: