PRESS
TEXAS WANTS TO EXECUTE A MAN WITHOUT EXAMINING ALL THE EVIDENCE
EDITORIAL THE WASHINGTON POST
 OCTOBER 19, 2010
Texas wants to execute a man without examining all the evidence Tuesday, October 19, 2010 Editorial - The Washington Post HENRY W. Skinner was convicted in 1995 of the stabbing and beating deaths of his girlfriend and her two disabled sons. In pressing its case against Mr. Skinner, a district attorney's office in Texas presented physical evidence and eyewitness testimony. It also performed DNA tests, some of which implicated the defendant and others that proved inconclusive. But the state inexplicably declined to test key pieces of evidence, including a knife that appeared to have been used in one of the murders, a blood- and sweat-stained jacket found near one of the bodies, and the girlfriend's fingernail clippings, which could contain the killer's DNA. Mr. Skinner, who has consistently maintained his innocence, twice has failed to persuade Texas judges to allow tests of this long-ignored evidence. The U.S. appeals court with jurisdiction over Texas affirmed the state court decisions. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on Wednesday. In 2009, a 5-4 majority of the justices turned down a similar request by an Alaska death-row inmate. But in that case the justices noted that Alaska did not have a law that allowed inmates to press for post-conviction DNA tests. They also said that the Alaska inmate should have brought his case to state court first, rather than going directly to the federal courts. These issues do not exist in Mr. Skinner's case. Texas, like most states, allows inmates to seek post-conviction DNA tests; Mr. Skinner turned to the federal courts only after he had exhausted his state court opportunities. Mr. Skinner is not asking for his conviction to be overturned. He is merely seeking the opportunity to test important pieces of evidence ignored by the prosecution. Mr. Skinner's lawyer declined to press for these tests during trial, not an unusual tactic in capital cases when lawyers fear that additional testing could sink their clients. This decision undermines Mr. Skinner's moral claims, but he should not be punished for the maneuverings of his lawyer -- especially not in a death-penalty case. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101804632.html?nav=rss_natio n/special