Supreme Court Stays Execution of Skinner; Now They Must Grant Certiorari

In an 11th-hour intervention, the Supreme Court today prevented the State of Texas from executing Hank Skinner, and issued a stay of the execution [Court order] to allow the Justices more time to consider whether to grant certiorari.

Thank God, the values of integrity, decency and justice prevailed in the minds of the Supremes. Our society has been spared, temporarily, the terrible shame of murdering a man despite nagging doubts of his guilt, caused by critically-important DNA evidence that was left untested. Said his attorney, University of Texas law professor Rob Owen:

We are relieved that the U.S. Supreme Court has intervened to prevent Mr. Skinner’s execution. As a result of this action, the court will have more time to determine whether to hear his appeal. This action suggests that the court believes there are important issues that require closer examination. We remain hopeful that the court will agree to hear Mr. Skinner's case and ultimately allow him the chance to prove his innocence through DNA testing.

At this stage, none of us knows for sure whether he bludgeoned Twila Busby to death and fatally stabbed her two sons on New Year's Eve, 1993. Skinner's attorneys argue he was convicted on "entirely circumstantial" evidence even while untested evidence remains sealed.

The Supreme Court must address the following issues which cast serious doubt about this conviction. As pointed out by Texas journalist Bob Ray, there are many flaws in this trial that raise grave concerns about Skinner's conviction:

1. The prosecution's main witness, a woman whose home Skinner went to after he left the crime scene, recanted her testimony on tape. She has repeated, under oath, that she lied after authorities intimidated her.

2. Crucial evidence -- seven items, in fact -- have not been tested for DNA: 1) vaginal swabs taken from Busby; 2) Busby's fingernail clippings; 3) a knife found on the front porch of Busby's home; 4) a knife found in a plastic bag in the living room; 5) a dishtowel also found in the bag; 6) the windbreaker; and 7) hairs found in Busby's hands.

3. Several witnesses believe, as was suggested during the trial, that the dead woman's uncle was the killer. He had a history of sexually assaulting Twila, and he reportedly made advances at her earlier that evening. Prosecutors did not follow up on these allegations and never pursued them. DNA from the above-mentioned items can link him to the murder.

4. Skinner's attorneys offer evidence to prove that Skinner was too incapacitated by alcohol and drugs to have committed the crimes even though he was in the house when they occurred.

5. At trial, Skinner's court-appointed attorney, Harold Cromer, was the same person who, as a prosecutor, had earlier prosecuted Skinner for two minor crimes--assault and car theft! Comer had lost his prosecutor's post when he pleaded guilty to mishandling cash seized in drug cases his office had handled. The trial judge never conducted a hearing to determine whether a conflict of interest existed.

Each one of these failures is sufficient, in my opinion, to merit granting certiorari and returning the case to the trial court for the testing of the DNA evidence and conducting a hearing to adjudicate the results of the tests. Certainly, when considered in the accumulative, these abuses should lead the Supremes to the only logical conclusion - this guilty verdict cannot stand, and Skinner is entitled to a new trial.

The state and federal courts have so far, inexplicably, blocked Skinner's efforts to have the testing done, turning the procedural bars into the modern golden calf, and worshiping the new god of procedure at the expense of substance and justice. It's high time the High Court intervened in this case, and ordered Texas to put some meaning back into the phrase "the justice system."