Posted Tuesday, November 15th, 2011 by Jessica Jackson
Skinner update: Death row inmate continues the fight to prove his innocence
As you may remember from my earlier post, Hank Skinner is an inmate on Texas’s death row whose case came before the Supreme Court last year. The question presented in that case was whether or not Mr. Skinner could sue the state over their DNA protocols which denied him the access to the crime scene DNA for testing. Despite his win in the high court last March, this week Mr. Skinner once again faced death after his execution was scheduled for last Wednesday.
As I closely followed Mr. Skinner’s developing story last week I found myself angered by the proceedings. Why is it that an accused defendant or convicted inmate can be denied the right to test to crime scene DNA against his own when a prosecutor enjoys the full privilege of determining if and when to test the evidence? Several years ago I worked on a case where a mixture of DNA had been left by several individuals on a piece of evidence at the scene of a crime. Instead of running the DNA through CODIS, the DNA database that only law enforcement has access to, the investigators chose to only test the DNA against the defendants DNA. The test revealed that of the five DNA profiles detected, two of the three defendants had come in contact with that piece of evidence. This meant that there were still three other possible suspects who could have been identified by running the DNA through CODIS. Law enforcement refused to allow the defendants this test, and although they were quickly acquitted by the jury, the defendants were unable to put forth the strongest defense possible by offering other possible suspects.
As Mr. Skinner continues to fight for the right to test the DNA evidence found at the scene of the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to death, I can’t help but wonder if this issue undermines the key principle behind our countries justice system. If you are innocent until proven guilty, why is it not required that every piece of evidence available be tested to establish proof of your guilt?
13 Comments
Post a comment
Dear Mr. Jackson,
Skinner had the opportunity to test all evidence pre trial. He and his defense team decided not to test the items because they feared that the outcome would damage their case in court. Post conviction DNA testing should protect the innocent and should not be used to game the system and entertain the courts. There was overwhelming evidence including DNA that shows Skinner guilty.
Sorry Ms. Jackson
Skinner wanted the evidence tested. His court appointed attorney, who had previously prosecuted him in an assault case, did not want the evidence tested.
Nobody denies that Skinner was at the scene of the crime. Toxicology tests showed that he would have been incapacitated by a near-lethal dose of alcohol and codeine. The blood from two of the three victims that was on his clothes was consistent with stumbling around the crime scene.
The state of Texas has spent over a decade and around two million dollars fighting DNA testing that would take a few months at most and cost around $550 (which Skinner’s new attorney has offered to pay himself).
Several members of the jury which convicted Skinner, in light of this information, are no longer convinced of his guilt.
If he wanted to have the evidence tested he could have fired Comer.
You say, “post-conviction DNA testing should protect the innocent.”
Isn’t the point of this testing to figure out WHO is innocent?
Why do you think there should be any post-conviction DNA testing at all if you already know who is innocent and who is guilty?
William the defense team and Skinner declined to test the same blood soaked evidence that is in question now. This was trial strategy at the time because they thought it would further implicate Skinner. At trial, Skinners own blood splatter expert testified that Skinners story about the crime could not be true. How can Skinner, while intoxicated, tell who was the killer? How can he manage to walk 4 Blocks to hide in his ex-girlfriends house? Why did Skinner not go to the telephone and called 911? He also confessed. There was overwhelming evidence. He is gaming the system. All appellate courts affirmed the outcome of the trial.
Why do you think there should be any post-conviction DNA testing at all if you already know who is innocent and who is guilty based on the evidence at trial?
Also, I’m curious – how do you know so much about the Skinner trial? Were you involved, or just interested in the case?
Not involved but I read all trial transcripts and court documents.
I think you’ll find Andreas, that when Mr. Skinner was tried, the capacity to test DNA was not as sophisticated as it has become since his incarceration. Unless the prosecution has something to fear from the test, it is incomprehensible that they should not agree to carry it out. I can’t help wondering whether justice is what is being sought here or just the opportunity to tick a box whilst conveniently ignoring that that action will cost a man, who may well be innocent, his life.
If the DNA is tested now it will open the door for numerous offenders to decide not to test pre trial but sue the state to test it during the appellate process. If the DNA would be tested in Skinners case now and the test are not in favour of Skinner, he would appeal the tests aganin and again and again. All items where avaiable pre trial. Skinner had the chance to test them but he and his defense team decided not to do so. He was intoxicated but managed to walk 4 Blocks without stopping and call 911? He was able to hide in the house of his ex-girlfriend? He was able to confess at the police station? He was able to piss over his clothes to hide the evidence? He was able to see a type error in a paper that he had to sign at the police station, while intoxicated? Bla Bla Bla. His own blood splatter expert said that the story he told could not be true. He changed his story several times during the years. He claimed, Twila Busby was raped by her now diceased uncle. There was no evidence at the crime scene for that? The windbreaker has an other colour than the windbreaker the uncle usually wore. No folks, Skinner is gaming the system and entertaining the courts to buy more time. But never in the hell he is innocent. For me, the DNA test would be fine. When the outcome would not be exculpatory: immediately take him out of his cell, move him to Huntsville and pull the trigger.
Andrea-
First off, when I wrote this piece, I was posing a broader policy question of whether or not the defense should be entitled the same access as the prosecution at either trial or during the appellate proceedings to test available DNA evidence. Many inmates, especially those here in CA, were convicted prior to availability of sophisticated DNA testing. Should they not be allowed to test the evidence on post conviction either?
Secondly, unless you were actually there during the discussions between Mr. Skinner and his lawyer, which I presume you were not, you cannot allege that Mr. Skinner himself decided not to have the DNA testing conducted at trial. Many times defendants disagree with the strategies their lawyers choose to pursue at trial and are unable to obtain the court’s permission to have counsel replaced. In Mr. Skinner’s case, his lawyer had a serious conflict in representing him having previously prosecuted him in the past and I personally refuse to believe that the lawyers decision to not test the DNA supports an automatic conclusion that Mr. Skinner is therefore guilty.
Finally, you state that Mr. Skinner is “gaming” the courts. In reality Mr. Skinner asked for a simple test that could have been conducted within a matter of weeks and then the issue would have been put to rest. It is the prosecutor’s refusal to allow the testing that has resulted in years of delays and thousands of tax payers dollars being spent litigating whether or not the DNa can be tested.
Death is the ultimate punishment in our society and it is an irreversible consequence. If we insist on having such a permanent punishment, why should we not take every precaution available to ensure that it is only administered in cases where the convicted really is guilty?
First of all, thank you for the answer. Off course I was not there when Skinner had his conversations with his lawyers. But, Comer said at the evedentiary hearing, that Skinner confirmed the strategy. Secondly this means that he rather decided to risk the Death Penalty than to test all the evidence pre trial. I doubt someone would do that. Third, Skinner is guilty because there was DNA tested that proved he did it and there was also other overwhelming evidence. You can read this all in the trial transcripts and the transcripts of the evidentiary hearing. And he is indeed gaming the courts. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito mentioned this in his dissent. If the state would allow this in this case every other offender could decline to test the available DNA pre trial and then could file a lawsuit to test it during the appellate process or shortly before an execution. When there is not all DNA available before the trial, then it is another situation and surely an offender should be allowed to test it then. And the right guy was convicted. Like in the Troy Davis Case, the state proved his burden and won in all courts of law. The state lost in the media. That´s all.