Supreme Court says Texas inmate has right to DNA testing

CNN ^ | March 7, 2011 | Bill Mears

[Hawk720]

The Supreme Court has given another legal reprieve to a Texas death row inmate who says DNA testing of crime scene evidence will prove his "actual innocence."

It was unclear how the ruling will apply to similar legal challenges.

The justices by a 6-3 vote on Monday said Henry "Hank" Skinner does have a basic civil right to press for analysis of biological evidence not tested at the time of his trial.

The very narrow ruling does not yet get Skinner off death row for the murders of his girlfriend and her two sons, but it gives him another legal avenue to pursue to press his claims he did not commit the crimes.

Skinner came within 45 minutes of lethal injection before the justices stepped in and agreed to hear his constitutional claims.

[starlifter]

I vigorously disagree. It's not a game...DNA testing is cheap and relatively simple.

[AM2000]

IMO cost shouldn't even be a factor. We're talking about potentially ending the life of a person. The only factor should be justice. Guilty or not guilty? To me, it's morally reprehensible to deny a man the ability to prove his innocence and thereby save his own life because we feel him doing so may cost too much.

[AM2000]

What a strange coalition of justices. Thomas and Kennedy? Scalia and Sotomayor? Hmmm.

[Vigilanteman]

Neither simplicity nor cheapness is the central point.

Is there is DNA evidence available which could either exonerate the convict or confirm his guilt, it should be used.

By the same token, if the DNA evidence confirms his guilt (as it will in most cases), then far more expensive and duplicate appeals should be terminated and a quick date with the hangman should be set.

Potential embarrassment of judges, prosecutors or others involved with a phony conviction should play no role in the process.

[starlifter]

I agree with one exception...

There are multiple avenues of appeal. The fact that one does not pan out should not preclude other avenues of appeal.

[Vigilanteman]

Is there is DNA . . . = If there is DNA . . .

Sorry.

[deport]

[samtheman]

I agree, cost shouldn’t be a factor. But I bring it up only to show that for those for whom cost IS a factor, DNA is very cost-effective. Better to know early whether you’ve really got the right person or not than to defend your “hunch” with millions of dollars over years and decades.

[samtheman]

Oh I have no doubt the guy is guilty. But with all that blood, why not test? What have you got to lose?

[samtheman]

But there should be some risk to the inmate involved as in “If the DNA proves you are guilty, then are no more appeals and you get a quick date with the hangman.”

Absolutely.

If the DNA shows the case is sound,
In 30 days he should be in the ground.

[MeganC]

There’s a lot of people who’d like to make us all forget Nifong.