cases like this steam me up

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

why doesn't the state just test the evidence? isn't it supposed to be about the truth?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/13/supreme-court-hears-case-texas-death-row-inmates/

bad cases like this will take capital punishment off the menu

[roo_ster]

Not the reaction I'd expect from you.

I'd expect some speculation as to why the defense team itself didn't want to test the evidence in the original trial.  First reason that pops to mind is that he did it.

Why appeal this, then, to mandate testing at this time?
1. If the case wins, anti-DP folks have another avenue of attack.
2. Skinner lives while the appeals drag on.

From my read, the issues argued before the court are using the feds as an alternate venue to re-try waht was decided at the state level.

But, I gotta agree, I think I'd make it state policy to test it ALL.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

me too

texas doesn't want a coleman case

it haunts va  we offed a guy on a pretty strong case that was largely circumstantial   there was evidence that could be conclusive but the state refused to allow it to be tested.  other folks have offered to pay for it and they still hide.  it look bad  and thats cause it is bad.

it took 14 years after his execution before they allowed it to be tested and it finally put to rest the case.   there is no good reason not to be sure

[Northwoods]

IMHO the DP should be reserved for cases where this is no doubt.  Beyond a reasonable doubt shouldn't be good enough.  It should be overwhelmingly obvious that the person is guilty, with no chance of innocence.  Free confessions (corroborated of course), video evidence, DNA evidence from multiple independant labs with no other explanation than guilt, etc.  If that standard can't be met, then life at hard labor without any possibility of parole should be the standard sentance for currently DP eligable crimes. 

Yeah, that would let some crooks escape the death chamber.  But some escape jail altogether (e.g. OJ) as it is.  So what.  I'd rather take that risk than executing an innocent man.

But, if they meet that standard of no doubt, then the execution should take place within 1 year of the original conviction.  Give an automatic appeal to the state supreme court, followed by an appeal to SCOTUS.  If both turn down the appeal then within a week of that being settled the scumbag initiates his dirt nap.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

that works for me

[vaskidmark]

OK, here's a thought for you to chew on.

The state has all the resources it wants to expend during a trial, whether it's your challenge of a littering ticket or this DP case.  The defendant, on the other hand, is limited to the justice they can afford.n  (I'm guessing here.  Skinner's lawyer has not stated why the defense did not get the testing done.)

Under current SCOTUS rulings the state is required to present to the defense every bit of exculpatory evidence it has knowledge of.

As I read it, this case if decided on favor of Skinner would require the state to test everything that might potentially be "evidence".  And then, when the CSI Effect is operationalized, the only thing needed to prevent a conviction would be the allegation that the state "missed" some supposedly obvious piece of evidence.  Unless SCOTUS somehow crafts a decision favoring Skinner that brings the defense's trial strategy into the mix - a situation I do NOT see taking place - I see SCOTUS deciding against Skinner in ordere to not effectively halt the death penalty once again, this time over the question of money.

stay safe.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i'm not sure what scares me most, that i undestood what you said from hanging round the system or the potential injustice such a ruling could allow

[roo_ster]

The state has all the resources it wants to expend during a trial, whether it's your challenge of a littering ticket or this DP case.  The defendant, on the other hand, is limited to the justice they can afford.n  (I'm guessing here.  Skinner's lawyer has not stated why the defense did not get the testing done.)

Even the "rich" defendants, with millions of dollars, can only reduce the disparity, not reach parity.

But, this IS Texas, where we really, really want to send those convicted and sentenced to the DP to their reward in the hereafter.  As such, the state of Texas provides big time $$$ to the defense in DP trials.  That is one of the reasons so few of Texas's DP convictions have gotten tossed(1).  And even though testing is expensive, it is not nearly so expensive as a bunch of investigator man-hours.

It is also one of the reasons I am waxing CSD and wondering why the defense didn't test in the original trial.




(1) Some have, but it is a relative thing.

[roo_ster]

i'm not sure what scares me most, that i undestood what you said from hanging round the system or the potential injustice such a ruling could allow

Ayup.

The defense lawyers would have brought it on themselves.  Then, they get to go home, have dinner, and sleep in a nice, safe, bed.  The folks who would take it in the face (and elsewhere) are future defendants.

[Cromlech]

I'm pretty much with sumpnz on this one. When there is massively overwhelming evidence for someone committing a heinous crime like murder, especially mass murders, like video footage and dozens or hundreds of witnesses, then I have no qualms about killing them.
Otherwise, I like the idea of hard labour, providing some kind of service, and very lengthy prison sentences.

[MechAg94]

I'm pretty much with sumpnz on this one. When there is massively overwhelming evidence for someone committing a heinous crime like murder, especially mass murders, like video footage and dozens or hundreds of witnesses, then I have no qualms about killing them.
Otherwise, I like the idea of hard labour, providing some kind of service, and very lengthy prison sentences.

Okay, get the laws changed to allow hard labor and longer sentences first.  Then I might support changing the DP laws. 

[Northwoods]

Otherwise, I like the idea of hard labour, providing some kind of service

I like the Ft Leavenworth idea of hard labor.  Give the inmate a boulder and a hammer.  When he's down to a pile of gravel, give him another boulder.  14 hrs per day, 6 days per week until he drops dead.  I'm willing to give 1 day/week for them to reflect on what got them in that situation and to pray.

[MechAg94]

IMHO the DP should be reserved for cases where this is no doubt. 

There is no such thing as "no doubt".  What is the real difference between "no doubt" and "no reasonable doubt" anyway?  Are you saying that "Unreasonable Doubts" should start determining guilt/innocence?  Can you really prove that aliens didn't kill the victim?  Can you prove that the victim didn't die of a heart attack instead of the sudden loss of blood?

I really think that is a door you don't want to open.

[Northwoods]

Are you saying that "Unreasonable Doubts" should start determining guilt/innocence?  Can you really prove that aliens didn't kill the victim?  Can you prove that the victim didn't die of a heart attack instead of the sudden loss of blood?

They say that reading is the key to comprehension.

[MechAg94]

I like the Ft Leavenworth idea of hard labor.  Give the inmate a boulder and a hammer.  When he's down to a pile of gravel, give him another boulder.  14 hrs per day, 6 days per week until he drops dead.  I'm willing to give 1 day/week for them to reflect on what got them in that situation and to pray.

Do they still do that?
In normal prisons, you would have every inmate filing multiple lawsuits and state and federal court.  

[MechAg94]

They say that reading is the key to comprehension.

That goes both ways.

There is no such thing as "no doubt" in the court of law.  That should be obvious.

IMHO the DP should be reserved for cases where this is no doubt.  Beyond a reasonable doubt shouldn't be good enough.

[MechAg94]

I thought Texas had tried to pass some laws to stream line or limit the appeals in cases where there were multiple witnesses and overwhelming evidence.  I'm not sure if it was actually passed or what the details were. 

From what I understand, in Texas, the jury determines if someone is eligible for the DP. 

Once each side has pleaded its case, the jury must answer two questions (three, if the person was convicted as a party) to determine whether a person will or will not be sentenced to death:

    * The first question is whether there exists a probability the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a "continuing threat to society". "Society" in this instance includes both inside and outside of prison; thus, a defendant who would constitute a threat to people inside of prison, such as correctional officers or other inmates, is eligible for the death penalty.
    * The second question is whether, taking into consideration the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there exists sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence.
    * If the person was convicted as a party, the third question asked is whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased, or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased, or "anticipated" that a human life would be taken.

In order for a death sentence to be imposed, the jury must answer the first question 'Yes' and the second question 'No' (and, if convicted as a party, the third question 'Yes'). Otherwise the sentence is life in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Texas
Wiki seems to have a decent explanation.

[MechAg94]

On this case, I was wondering also why the defense wouldn't test the evidence or why the prosecution wouldn't want it also.  It makes me wonder if that evidence is disputed or if it was "found" later or is there is something else that led that evidence to be discounted as not credible.  The wording used in the article raises questions for me.

Skinner has maintained his innocence, claiming he was not physically able to have committed the murders because of a hand injury and being too drunk and high on codeine at the time.

I guess I don't believe you can be too drunk or high to hurt someone. 

The defense wants to test additional evidence that could determine whether Ms. Busby was sexually assaulted and, if so, by whom. They also want testing done on two knives that his lawyers say were likely used to kill the two sons.

Why does it say "likely"?  If it was evidence in the original trial, wouldn't there have been blood or would the coroner have made judgments on that?

Maybe I am reading too much into the wording.

[roo_ster]

"Unreasonable doubt" is a good standard I would not muck with.

[vaskidmark]

i'm not sure what scares me most, that i undestood what you said from hanging round the system or the potential injustice such a ruling could allow

My work here is done.

Thanks for the vote of confidence understanding acknowledgement - OK, thanks for your vote.

stay safe.

[Hawkmoon]

There is no such thing as "no doubt" in the court of law.  That should be obvious.

Sure there is.

The law only requires the jury to find guilt beyond the probability of "reasonable" doubt, but that doesn't mean if there is overwhelming evidence of guilt that the jury won't overwhelmingly agree without any doubt. Read a bunch of old news reports or murder trials and jury deliberations. Read enough, and you'll find more than one where the trial lasted for days or weeks, and the jury came back with a verdict of guilty in less than an hour.And much of that hour was expended not on deciding if the defendant was guilty, but on whether they could legitimately whack him with ALL the charges the prosecution brought, or only most of them.

Take the trial in Connecticut recently. The trial went on for a couple or three weeks. There were seventeen different charges. The verdict came back in about two hours -- after asking the judge for clarification on one charge, the jury found the defendant guilty of 16 out of 17 charges.

I don't think there was any doubt at all in the jury's collective mind.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"Unreasonable doubt" is a good standard I would not muck with.

yea
this though i wanna muck with

not wanting to badmouth any one state but both va and texas have some less than glorious moments in our legal systems. i think being real hard core law and order carries a risk of making mistakes in that push to "get em"

things like this
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-DNAlineups_05pro.ART.State.Edition2.4a899db.html

cast a pall over the entire system

as does giving a guy 190 k for 15 years in the joint for something he didn't do.  i can safely claim to not be soft on criminals but the mistakes burn me up cause they do it in my/our name

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

these folks bring up some good points that i believe you share about forensics that to be candid i wasn't aware of till they were brought up here
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php


and outa 239 exonerated folks 40 are in texas 12 are in va  both states are over represented when you figure that those 239  cases came in 34 states

for example neither state has a law about recording interrogations.  why the heck not if its all on the up and up

the malfeasance in this case
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/25_Years_After_Wrongful_Conviction_Steven_Phillips_Set_To_Be_Exonerated_in_Dallas_Based_on_DNA_and_Other_Evidence.php

should see the cops jailed and likely the prosecutor as well

in va the state refused to allow dna testing for 14 years   refused even when it was gonna be paid for by the vatican. that would eventually confirm that keith coleman was rightfully executed. 

earl washington had dna testing done that twice exonerated him from the murder that had him on death row.  it was done twice because the dem governor the first time only commuted his sentence to life and covered up the test.  don't wanna be soft on crime in an election year.  it was a hard core rep. that did the second test and set him free. when the second test was done the lab brought it to everyones attention that it was the second identical test result they had gotten.

thats unacceptable   and should be a shooting offense

[Hawkmoon]

I agree with C&SD. I do not advocate elimination of the death penalty, but I do have grave concerns about the ethics of the criminal "justice" system. The system only works if/when everyone involved plays by the rules. When cops start either hiding evidence or manufacturing evidence, when prosecutors pile on boatloads of charges in the hope that something will stick, and THEN withhold potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense ... heads should roll, and the heads should not be that of the defendant.

The problem is that the system has become focused on results, rather than on the process. Which is wrong, of course, because the law supposedly requires and supposedly guarantees "due process."

If the guy on trial is guilty but they got him to court by fabricating evidence and/or violating his rights, I would rather see him go free so that maybe down the road there won't be an innocent defendant on trial because of falsified evidence. But the police are under pressure to solve cases, not to respect the civil rights of less than stellar members of society. Prosecutors (too often) see their job as getting a conviction, not ensuring that justice is served.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i would have more respect for the bad prosecutors/cops if they walked up to the guy on the street and gunned him down .  gaming the system to achieve that same result prostitutes the system and by proxy me since i hold that the system represents me. at least gunning him down they would have manned up and taken responsibility.

[Perd Hapley]

IMHO the DP should be reserved for cases where this is no doubt.  Beyond a reasonable doubt shouldn't be good enough.  It should be overwhelmingly obvious that the person is guilty, with no chance of innocence.  Free confessions (corroborated of course), video evidence, DNA evidence from multiple independant labs with no other explanation than guilt, etc.  If that standard can't be met, then life at hard labor without any possibility of parole should be the standard sentance for currently DP eligable crimes. 

Yeah, that would let some crooks escape the death chamber.  But some escape jail altogether (e.g. OJ) as it is.  So what.  I'd rather take that risk than executing an innocent man.

First, beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard. Hoping for a higher standard from human systems of justice is, well, it's just way beyond reasonable.

Secondly, years of prison time can't be undone, any more than death.

But, if they meet that standard of no doubt, then the execution should take place within 1 year of the original conviction.  Give an automatic appeal to the state supreme court, followed by an appeal to SCOTUS.  If both turn down the appeal then within a week of that being settled the scumbag initiates his dirt nap.

I guess this might work under your crazy standard where everybody within five city blocks has to videotape the crime, and take a DNA sample from the perp, before the guy can be offed. But why skip all the way to the state supreme court, and why on earth shouldn't a state be able to execute a murderer without SCOTUS approval?

Under a beyond reasonable standard, I kinda like where you're going, but it needs a few very large tweaks. Automatic appeals sound good, but adding all those appeals to the docket is not going to make justice work any faster. That'd be a lot of case load. Especially where supreme courts are involved, but a supreme court is not the place for routine appeals of routine cases, anyway.