Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Supreme Court Clears Path Toward Post-Conviction DNA Testing

3 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
The United States Supreme Court Monday made it easier for convicted prisoners to seek and obtain post-trial DNA testing even over the objections of law enforcement officials.

In a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court ruled that death row inmate Henry Skinner could now proceed to seek crime-scene testing from Texas authorities under the federal civil rights law known as "Section 1983."

Skinner was convicted in 1995 of murdering his girlfriend, Twila Busby, and her two children. At his trial, Skinner said he was too incapacitated by drugs and alcohol to have committed the crimes and he identified Busby's uncle as the perpetrator. There was blood and fingerprint testing done at the scene of the crime but no DNA testing before trial. In 2001, six years after Skinner's trial, Texas passed a law allowing prisoners to seek post-conviction DNA in some cases. Twice Skinner tried to invoke the Texas law to get additional testing done. Twice the state courts shot him down.

Skinner took his cause to federal court and was hours away from being executed by lethal injection last March when the Supreme Court stepped in to halt the proceedings under way at the Texas state prison in Huntsville. By that time, Skinner's cause had become an international one, largely because of the work performed by members of the Medill Innocence Project at Northwestern University, which sends out teams of undergraduate investigators to look into claims of wrongdoing within the criminal justice system. When Medill investigators looked into the Skinner case, starting in 2000, they found significant problems with some of the evidence Skinner's jurors had heard at trial.

In Skinner v. Switzer, Justice Ginsburg ruled that Skinner was entitled to press state officials for testing under Section 1983 in part because "success in his suit for DNA testing would not 'necessarily imply' the invalidity of his conviction. While test results might prove exculpatory, that outcome is hardly inevitable... results might prove inconclusive or they might further incriminate Skinner." Justice Ginsburg rejected the argument made by Texas' lawyers that allowing such claims everywhere under the federal law would generate a new flood of prisoner litigation. "In the Circuits that currently allow §1983 claims for DNA testing," she wrote, no evidence tendered by Switzer shows any litigation flood or even rainfall."

The Court's order does not guarantee that Skinner will be able to have DNA testing conducted of evidence taken from the crime scene. But it allows Skinner's defense attorneys to take a direct legal route in asking the federal courts to intercede on Skinner's behalf with Texas officials, including state court judges, who so far have refused to authorize such testing. The Court's ruling also ensures that Skinner's execution date will remain in limbo for perhaps as many as two more years -- even if he ultimately loses his new attempt to have DNA testing done.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself and Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, wrote that the majority's opinion was not warranted by Court precedent and inappropriately gave convicted prisoners like Skinner what Justice Thomas called "a road map" to challenge their state court proceedings. "What prisoner would not avail himself of this additional bite at the apple," he said.

One of Skinner's attorneys, Robert C. Owen, said in the wake of the ruling: "The Court's action corrects the Fifth Circuit's fundamental misunderstanding of this important principle. As Justice Ginsburg states in her majority opinion, there is no reason to fear that lawsuits like Mr. Skinner's will overwhelm the federal courts. The high court's ruling will simply make it possible for Mr. Skinner to vindicate his due process rights in federal court, a right long enjoyed by prisoners in other parts of the country. We look forward to making our case in federal court that Texas's inexplicable refusal to grant Mr. Skinner access to evidence for DNA testing is fundamentally unfair and cannot stand."

Texas state attorneys did not immediately comment. Nina Morrison, a staff attorney with the Innocence Project, issued this statement: "Mr. Skinner has been fighting for 10 years for access to evidence so that he could conduct DNA testing that could prove his innocence.... we hope that the district attorney will end further delay and consent to the testing."
Filed Under: Crime, Supreme Court

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

5 Comments

Filter by:
dworkenlaw1

This is a very narrow ruling. It does not say that a convicted defendant will have the right to use DNA evidence. It only requires the federal court system to get involved to make sure that federal due process is followed in whatever is done on the state level.

The more interesting issue will be when the USSC hears an appeal from the statute passed in, I think, Alaska, which BARS any use of DNA evidence to challenge a conviction, even if it shows the conviction was incorrect.

That kind of case will pull the USSC closer to having to finally take a stand on whether is it every "OK" to punish someone you know did not do the crime.

And that is something which should be a question which answers itself. Too bad that in the US, which often honors form over substance, it is not.

Patrick

March 07 2011 at 6:03 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
OldGuy

Texas -- where holding an Execution is more important than finding out if you are executing the right man.

If Texas was interesting in executing the right man, it would have let the DNA tests go forward. If the DNA testing had not gotten him off, then he would have been executed by now.

But, letting tests take place might imply that Texas sometimes executes the wrong man. And that might make some people think about the morality of the death penalty.

Glad to see some sense from the USSC.

March 07 2011 at 5:31 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
Charlie

Shame on Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy!

March 07 2011 at 4:21 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
Joy

Clarence Thomas can write?? Oh thats right.....he can't talk.

March 07 2011 at 3:22 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
vhebert941

What Justice Thomas Alito and Kennedy? "Those people" (a c c u s e d fellow citizens)
shouldn't have a roadmap (law?) to their innocence?
Or how about no doubt about their guilt?
MAYbe we shouldn't give them lawyers either. Or use of lawbooks and maybe no constitution either.
I know! I know! They're guilty anyway! How about no defense?

March 07 2011 at 3:18 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>