QUOTE OF THE DAY: "One of Swearingen’s attorneys, Bryce Benjet of the Innocence Project, stated on news of the Supreme Court’s rejection of their client’s motion for a stay of execution, “We are heartbroken by today’s Supreme Court decision. It is a tragic conclusion to Mr. Swearingen’s fight to prove his innocence.” “Mr. Swearingen has maintained his innocence from the beginning of this case nearly 20 years ago and the substantial evidence of his innocence has been accumulating with each passing week,” he said. “The Supreme Court’s decision prevents Mr. Swearingen from proving his innocence. It is unconscionable that Mr. Swearingen or anyone else should be executed based on science known to be false.”
-------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE TWO OF THE DAY: "Mr. Swearingen’s case exemplifies the potential for a miscarriage of justice when invalid scientific evidence is used to convict,” said Benjet of the Innocence Project. “Without meaningful judicial remedies for addressing junk science in criminal cases, how can we have confidence that people convicted and executed based on this scientifically invalid evidence are actually guilty?”
-------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "Physical evidence debunked: Swearingen was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of Trotter in 2000 by a jury in the 9th District Court. Earlier in August, he sought authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to file a successor petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This was based on new information provided to Swearingen’s defense by the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory (DPS) stating that he had been provided with inaccurate testimony at his trial. DPS stated that their expert had an “insufficient basis” for her testimony and had “no direct knowledge” that the only male DNA identified on the murder victim was contaminated. The DNA, in fact, excluded Swearingen. The DPS also conceded that its expert, technician Sandy Musialowski, should not have provided testimony that two half pieces of pantyhose—one used as the means of strangling the victim, the other found in Swearingen’s home—were a “unique” match, or a match “to the exclusion of all other pantyhose.” Musialowski had in fact initially found “no physical match between ligature [strangling evidence] and pantyhose.” An expert that examined the evidence for the defense, Deborah Young, a professor of textile science at Cal Poly Pomona, wrote, “At first glance” the pieces of fabric from the ligature and the pantyhose “appear to connect, but once the deliberate space between them is removed, it becomes quite clear that they do not match … My opinion is that while both pantyhose were cut in the same basic silhouette, they were not cut from the same piece"
-------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "A DPS lab technician had testified that blood found under Trotter’s fingernails probably came from contamination during the collection or testing process. However, the DPS stated this month that the technician had no grounds for this testimony, and that the blood found under Trotter’s fingernails was from a man, but not from Swearingen. At Swearingen’s trial, the medical examiner testified that Trotter probably had been dead for 25 days, the amount of time between when she disappeared from her community college and when her body was found. However, numerous forensic experts have since testified that she had probably been dead for about two weeks or less. Since Swearingen had been arrested three days after Trotter disappeared, and three weeks before her body was found, these experts’ testimony would exclude him as the perpetrator."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 1,503 individuals have been sent to their deaths. The executions have included the mentally impaired, those sentenced for crimes committed as juveniles, and foreign nationals denied their consular rights. Any critical examination of the unscrupulous practices of prosecutors and the manipulation of evidence in capital cases—and the willingness of the highest court in the land to uphold death sentences based on these practices—points to the conclusion that many innocent people have been sent to their deaths."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Texas prisoner executed despite debunked forensic evidence pointing to his innocence," by reporter Kate Randall, published by The International Committee of the Fourth International on the World Socialist Web Site on August 24, 2019. (Journalist at the World Socialist Web Site covering Obamacare and the US death penalty. Boston, Mass.)
GIST: "Texas carried out the execution of Larry Swearingen Wednesday evening
despite serious doubts surrounding virtually every piece of forensic
evidence in his case. Swearingen, 48, was convicted in the murder of
19-year-old college student Melissa Trotter, who disappeared from her
community college in December 1998 and was later found dead. Swearingen’s defense attorneys had argued for more nearly two decades
that scientific evidence in his case—DNA evidence under Trotter’s
fingernails that was not his, pantyhose allegedly used in the murder,
blood specks that were not a match for Swearingen, and inconsistencies
in the timeline of the victim’s murder—exonerated him. Before the execution, Houston-based attorney James Rytting said,
“They may put Larry Swearingen under, but his case is not going to die.” Swearingen had five previous dates with death, which had all been
stayed. His final motion was to the US Supreme Court, which denied his
appeal shortly before 6 p.m. local time. He died by lethal injection at
the state prison in Huntsville, Texas, stating in the execution chamber:
“Lord forgive them. They don’t know what they are doing.” The Houston Chronicle reported that he spoke with his eyes
closed, strapped to the gurney, as the lethal chemicals were injected:
“I can hear it going through the vein — I can taste it,” describing a
burning feeling in his right arm. “I don’t feel anything in the left,”
he added. At 6:35 p.m., he began snoring, and at 6:47 p.m. local time he
took his last breath. One of Swearingen’s attorneys, Bryce Benjet of the Innocence Project,
stated on news of the Supreme Court’s rejection of their client’s
motion for a stay of execution, “We are heartbroken by today’s Supreme
Court decision. It is a tragic conclusion to Mr. Swearingen’s fight to
prove his innocence.” “Mr. Swearingen has maintained his innocence from the beginning of
this case nearly 20 years ago and the substantial evidence of his
innocence has been accumulating with each passing week,” he said. “The
Supreme Court’s decision prevents Mr. Swearingen from proving his
innocence. It is unconscionable that Mr. Swearingen or anyone else
should be executed based on science known to be false.” Physical evidence debunked: Swearingen was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and
murder of Trotter in 2000 by a jury in the 9th District Court. Earlier
in August, he sought authorization from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to file a successor petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. This was based on new information provided to
Swearingen’s defense by the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime
Laboratory (DPS) stating that he had been provided with inaccurate
testimony at his trial. DPS stated that their expert had an “insufficient basis” for her
testimony and had “no direct knowledge” that the only male DNA
identified on the murder victim was contaminated. The DNA, in fact,
excluded Swearingen. The
DPS also conceded that its expert, technician Sandy Musialowski, should
not have provided testimony that two half pieces of pantyhose—one used
as the means of strangling the victim, the other found in Swearingen’s
home—were a “unique” match, or a match “to the exclusion of all other
pantyhose.” Musialowski had in fact initially found “no physical match
between ligature [strangling evidence] & pantyhose.” An expert that examined the evidence for the defense, Deborah Young, a
professor of textile science at Cal Poly Pomona, wrote, “At first
glance” the pieces of fabric from the ligature and the pantyhose “appear
to connect, but once the deliberate space between them is removed, it
becomes quite clear that they do not match … My opinion is that while
both pantyhose were cut in the same basic silhouette, they were not cut
from the same piece. A DPS lab technician had testified that blood found under Trotter’s
fingernails probably came from contamination during the collection or
testing process. However, the DPS stated this month that the technician
had no grounds for this testimony, and that the blood found under
Trotter’s fingernails was from a man, but not from Swearingen. At Swearingen’s trial, the medical examiner testified that Trotter
probably had been dead for 25 days, the amount of time between when she
disappeared from her community college and when her body was found.
However, numerous forensic experts have since testified that she had
probably been dead for about two weeks or less. Since Swearingen had
been arrested three days after Trotter disappeared, and three weeks
before her body was found, these experts’ testimony would exclude him as
the perpetrator. Execution of the innocent: Despite the clear doubt placed over the forensic evidence, leaving
only circumstantial evidence against Swearingen, Kelly Blackburn, the
assistant district attorney who had handled Swearingen’s case since
2010, said, “I’ve never been more confident of the guilt of Larry
Swearingen than I am today.” The Supreme Court also ruled against a stay
to allow the condemned prisoner to present his case in light of the
discredited forensic evidence. “Mr. Swearingen’s case exemplifies the potential for a miscarriage of
justice when invalid scientific evidence is used to convict,” said
Benjet of the Innocence Project. “Without meaningful judicial remedies
for addressing junk science in criminal cases, how can we have
confidence that people convicted and executed based on this
scientifically invalid evidence are actually guilty?” According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), 166 people
have been exonerated from death row since 1972. A 2014 study published
in the National Academy of Sciences by Michigan law professor Samuel
Gross and his coauthors estimated that 4.1 percent of people on death
row in the US have been wrongfully convicted. The DPIC estimates that as
of April 1, 2019, there were 2,673 people on death rows across the US. The most recent exoneree is Charles Ray Finch, who was convicted and
sentenced to death in 1976 based on false forensic testimony and an
eyewitness identification manipulated by police misconduct. He was
resentenced to life in prison after the US Supreme Court declared
mandatory death sentences unconstitutional. On January 25, 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
found Finch “actually innocent” of the murder and remanded his case to
the federal district court to consider the prosecution’s withholding of
exculpatory evidence in his case. On June 14, 2019, the Wilson County
District Attorney dismissed all charges in the case. He was released
after spending 43 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. He was
81. Since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 1,503
individuals have been sent to their deaths. The executions have included
the mentally impaired, those sentenced for crimes committed as
juveniles, and foreign nationals denied their consular rights. Any
critical examination of the unscrupulous practices of prosecutors and
the manipulation of evidence in capital cases—and the willingness of the
highest court in the land to uphold death sentences based on these
practices—points to the conclusion that many innocent people have been
sent to their deaths."
The entire story can be read at:
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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 found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
