Split personality?

By Walter M. Reaves Jr.

Another executions is scheduled this week - Hank Skinner. Though many people don't know the details of his case, it is generating discussion across the world. The  controversy is over the court's refusal to allow DNA testing on evidence that his lawyer's claim would prove his innocence. I don't know enough about his case to know whether he has a legitimate claim of innocence or not. What I do know though is enough to cause concern; concerns that could be easily answered by allowing testing.

The controversy exists mainly because Skinner's previous lawyers didn't request testing of all the evidence. The State did allow testing of some evidence in 2000, apparently believing that it would confirm Skinner's guilt - it didn't.  Instead the test results raised questions about Skinner's guilt. Because they didn't request testing earlier, the courts  have held they cannot do so now - basically they had their chance. While no one would ever publicly say it, the basic position is that "we don't care if you are innocent or not, you didn't follow the proper procedure". There is no doubt that rules exist, and they must be applied. Rarely do those rules have such dramatic consequences though.

What bothers me about me most about this case is the complete failure to learn from history. I'm certainly not the first to point out the similarities with Cameron Todd Willingham's case. Officials and courts refused to acknowledge questions of innocence, and the debate still continues. Does the state seriously believe that the thing is not going to happen with Skinner?

Governor Perry has a chance to step in and show he learned something from Willingham; he can grant a stay, and allow the courts another opportunity to look at - and test - the evidence (which an accredited lab has offered to do for free). If he doesn't, I wonder if he has a split personality, or is simply a master politician. On Friday Governor was out in front taking credit for the posthumous pardon of Timothy Cole. In doing so he has touted DNA evidence, which was able to not only exonerate Tim Cole, but identify the real perpetrator.  We will see soon whether he feels the same about DNA testing in Skinner's case. We will also see whether what happened on Willingham will have any influence on the way he evaluates claims of innocence.

Personally, I do not see how anyone could ignore what appears to be a legitimate claim of innocence. What do you have to lose? If the tests confirm guilt you are sure. If they support innocence, you avoided the greatest travesty justice imaginable. I've said before that I believe we are all going to have to account for our actions at some time. If Hank Skinner really is innocent can you imagine how ridiculous it is going to sound to say "he should have made his request earlier?" When the consequences of  being wrong are so high are we really willing to take the risk?

      Email    Print