Thursday, December 2, 2021

Ruben Gutierrez: Texas: Former District Attorney Sam Millsap articulates a very good reason for supporting DNA testing on crime scene evidence, saying: As the former elected district attorney of Bexar County, I find the prosecution’s refusal to ensure the accuracy of this case puzzling. The prosecutor has a moral, ethical and legal duty to ensure that justice is done. The prosecutor should be the one requesting DNA tests, not denying them every time."...Support for DNA testing does not make me or anyone else a bleeding heart liberal. I was a Bexar County District Attorney in the 1980s and a former board member of the National District Attorneys Association. My prosecutors have pulled thousands of criminals off the streets. We have pursued capital murder cases and put together a perfect case file. In all of the cases we have prosecuted, the accused has been convicted. The State of Texas executed each of these accused. In 2005, the Houston Chronicle convincingly argued that one of my lawsuits, against a young man named Ruben Cantu, may have resulted in the execution of an innocent person. Even though I thought Cantu’s trial was perfect, in 2004 my star witness, the lone eyewitness, retracted his testimony. This abjuration shook me deep within myself when I realized that a person I had pursued and who was subsequently executed could be innocent. Texas executed others, including Cameron Willingham, Carlos DeLuna and Claude Jones, who were almost certainly innocent. I believe, more than ever, that prosecutors and the courts should do everything in their power to ensure that Texas never executes another innocent person. In Gutierrez’s case, the decision to test DNA should be an easy one. Whenever DNA evidence exists, it should be tested."


WORDS TO HEED: FROM OUR POST ON KEVIN COOPER'S  APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING; CALIFORNIA: (Applicable wherever a state resists DNA testing): "Blogger/extraordinaire Jeff Gamso's blunt, unequivocal, unforgettable message to the powers that be in California: "JUST TEST THE FUCKING DNA." (Oh yes, Gamso raises, as he does in many of his posts, an important philosophical question: This post is headed: "What is truth, said jesting Pilate."...Says Gamso: "So what's the harm? What, exactly, are they scared of? Don't we want the truth?" 

------------------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The case against Gutierrez has never been waterproof. Gutierrez maintained his innocence and did not finally confess, in his third statement, until after police threatened to arrest his wife and take his children away. One of the main causes of wrongful convictions is police-induced false confessions. In nearly a third of DNA exemptions, the person had confessed falsely, according to Project Innocence. No physical or forensic evidence linked Gutierrez to the crime scene. The single eyewitness was unable to identify Gutierrez in court, although he was seated at the defense table next to his lawyer. Instead, the eyewitness chose someone from the gallery and a juror when asked to identify who he saw on the day of the crime. More than 70 percent of DNA exemptions involve mistaken eyewitness identifications. I don’t know if Gutierrez is telling the truth. But there is an easy way to find out. Test the DNA."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTARY:  "Prisoner sentenced to death on the right; Test DNA," by Sam Millsap, published by Folderol, on November 28, 2021. (Sam Millsap was a Bexar County District Attorney from 1982 to 1987 and practices law in San Antonio.)

"GIST: "Ruben Gutiérrez, who risks execution, has been requesting DNA testing on crime scene evidence for more than 10 years.

The reasonable position is to test DNA. The prosecutor’s position – blocking the tests – is unreasonable. There shouldn’t be anything controversial about wanting to learn the truth.

As the former elected district attorney of Bexar County, I find the prosecution’s refusal to ensure the accuracy of this case puzzling. The prosecutor has a moral, ethical and legal duty to ensure that justice is done. The prosecutor should be the one requesting DNA tests, not denying them every time.

At trial, the prosecution argued that Gutierrez, alone or with others, stabbed Escolastica Harrison. Gutierrez maintains that he didn’t kill Harrison and that he didn’t know others were going to assault or kill her.

Brownsville Police have collected several pieces of evidence with biological material that may contain DNA from the person (s) who killed Harrison. These articles have never been tested for DNA. If the crime happened today, DNA evidence would naturally be tested.

Gutierrez was convicted under Parties’ Law, which allows the jury to find someone guilty of capital murder based on the conduct of the co-defendants. Gutierrez argues that if DNA evidence had been presented to the jury and it showed he was not the real killer, jurors would not have sentenced him to death.

Support for DNA testing does not make me or anyone else a bleeding heart liberal. I was a Bexar County District Attorney in the 1980s and a former board member of the National District Attorneys Association. My prosecutors have pulled thousands of criminals off the streets.

We have pursued capital murder cases and put together a perfect case file. In all of the cases we have prosecuted, the accused has been convicted. The State of Texas executed each of these accused. In 2005, the Houston Chronicle convincingly argued that one of my lawsuits, against a young man named Ruben Cantu, may have resulted in the execution of an innocent person.

Even though I thought Cantu’s trial was perfect, in 2004 my star witness, the lone eyewitness, retracted his testimony. This abjuration shook me deep within myself when I realized that a person I had pursued and who was subsequently executed could be innocent.

Texas executed others, including Cameron Willingham, Carlos DeLuna and Claude Jones, who were almost certainly innocent. I believe, more than ever, that prosecutors and the courts should do everything in their power to ensure that Texas never executes another innocent person. In Gutierrez’s case, the decision to test DNA should be an easy one. Whenever DNA evidence exists, it should be tested.

The case against Gutierrez has never been waterproof. Gutierrez maintained his innocence and did not finally confess, in his third statement, until after police threatened to arrest his wife and take his children away. One of the main causes of wrongful convictions is police-induced false confessions. In nearly a third of DNA exemptions, the person had confessed falsely, according to Project Innocence.

No physical or forensic evidence linked Gutierrez to the crime scene. The single eyewitness was unable to identify Gutierrez in court, although he was seated at the defense table next to his lawyer. Instead, the eyewitness chose someone from the gallery and a juror when asked to identify who he saw on the day of the crime. More than 70 percent of DNA exemptions involve mistaken eyewitness identifications.

I don’t know if Gutierrez is telling the truth. But there is an easy way to find out. Test the DNA."

The entire story can be read at:

prisoner-sentenced-to-death-on-the-right-test-dna

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;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL, FINAL, FINAL WORD: "It is incredibly easy to convict an innocent person, but it's exceedingly difficult to undo such a devastating injustice. 
Jennifer Givens: DirectorL UVA Innocence Project.