That Damn Death Penalty - Again

by Katherine Scardino

I have posted many articles on Women in Crime Ink about the death penalty, especially in the State of Texas. There have been several incidences recently which scream out for a revisit of this unpopular and hateful subject.

I read an article yesterday in the local Houston paper that our Supreme Court refused to give Linda Carty a new trial - even though her trial lawyers did not put on any mitigating evidence and only met her two weeks before jury selection. Linda Carty did a terrible thing. She kidnapped a woman and her four-day-old baby, and killed the mother. Do not misunderstand - I, of all people, am well aware of the horrible acts that one person can commit against another. It is sickening and disgusting. That doesn't change the fact that we must have rules and laws that we all obey we're going to take a person’s life in the name of our law.

I admit I don't know all the facts of the Linda Carty case. Thank goodness I wasn't involved in it -- and I hope that if I had been, no one could say she had an incompetent defense. But the two failures in her defense are enough in my mind to give pause to the Supreme Court’s decision.

A defense attorney has a duty to “know” his client -- especially one who may die as a result of the attorney’s laxity or ineptness. It is indefensible for a lawyer to not meet his client until two weeks prior to trial. It is indefensible for a lawyer to know so little about his client that he has no witnesses and records to present to the jury during the punishment phase of a capital case. How can any attorney convince a jury that mercy -- life in prison instead of execution -- is appropriate without a complete picture of the defendant's background? What kind of life did this person live? What negative influences may have changed his life? 

This attorney is not arguing guilt or innocence. If he convinces the jury, it won't mean the defendant will walk out of the courtroom and down the elevator with you.

Then, there is the arson murder case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham was convicted of setting a fire that killed his three children. I don't have the words to express my outrage at how ignorant and uninformed Gov. Rick Perry sounded when he said the there was other evidence besides the state's arson experts to prove the cause of the fire. The State of Texas had to prove arson if the jury were to reach a capital murder verdict. The problem is that fire experts, not just someone the post-conviction lawyers pulled off the streets, but individuals renowned in the field, now condemn the state’s arson testimony as bogus and unscientific. Oh, did I forget to mention - Texas has already executed Cameron Todd Willingham. He was most certainly an innocent person. At least, Perry must be afraid he was. In October, Perry abruptly replaced the chairman and two members of the state's Forensic Science Commission -- two days before they were to hear the evidence of the arson expert. 

Rick Perry doesn't like the idea that while he sat on his ass and refused to look at the reputable fire scientists' evidence, Cameron Todd Willingham died.
Is there one person out there who can state that Cameron Todd Willingham is the only innocent person Texas has executed? I dare you to make that statement. You would have to ignore the evidence related to the cases of Carlos DeLuna and Ruben Cantu, just to name two. There are many more. But, the issue is - even if there is one, just one - that is one too many. Killing another human being, through an act of violence or an act of the supposed legal system of Texas our State, is final. We can't bring that person back to life. We took that away from him or her, and we did it wrongly.

Our capital punishment system in Texas -- and elsewhere -- is flawed. It is not dispensed fairly. It is not certain. Arrogant, self-centered, unqualified politicians decide whether new evidence is sufficient to stop an execution. These same arrogant, self-centered politicians -- so-called judges -- tell us that “actual innocence” is not enough to warrant a new trial, let alone stop an execution.

What in the hell are we doing?

Tweet

The Supreme Court and DNA: I'm Embarrassed for Them

by Laura James

The United States has always been woefully behind when it comes to forensic science. The forensic techniques so critical to criminal justice today were all discovered in Europe.

From fingerprints to arsenic tests to DNA, European scientists and European courts have led the way for centuries. And in 2009, that continues to be true.

In June 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States, on a 5-4 vote, refused to help an inmate whose access to DNA evidence was blocked by the state. The Supreme Court refused to acknowledge a right to DNA testing. The opinion is an embarrassment to me as an American.

Even though the Chief Justice acknowledged, right up front, that DNA evidence "has an unparallelled ability both to exonerate the wrongfully convicted and to identify the guilty," the Supreme Court said it is comfortable leaving it up to individual states to decide how much access to grant for DNA testing. And if they don't allow it, well, that's too bad.

The stated reasons for this decision were federalism -- the idea that each state is a nation unto itself -- and "finality" -- the idea that judges are too lazy to hear umpteen appeals. How deplorable of a court to cite "finality" -- to my way of thinking, a case isn't "final" until the execution is held or the sentence served.

But in the opinion filed by Justice Alito, you see a hint of the truth. In reality, the justices just don't think all that much of DNA evidence. Justice Alito (page 31), claims that DNA "often fails" to provide clear proof. He quotes resources on the difficulty of collecting crime scene evidence. He doesn't believe in the science.

The bottom line is, until we get a Supreme Court with faith in science in America, a convicted man can have access to potentially exculpatory DNA evidence depending on where he lives.

In Kentucky, only death row inmates are permitted access to DNA evidence. So if you're serving forty years for rape, tough luck.

In Alaska, a prosecutor can block your request for exonerating DNA testing for no logical reason. Tough luck, folks.

In America, we ought to have more respect for DNA evidence. I can't help but wonder if the United States Supreme Court would think more of DNA evidence if the science had been developed in the United States to begin with. Meanwhile, my inner flag dips as I hope that other countries and other justice systems continue to look elsewhere for leadership in forensic science.

Tweet