Is DNA Ignorance Best Policy for Hank Skinner?
Today, Texas is scheduled to execute Henry “Hank” Skinner, despite the fact that readily available evidence in his case has never been tested for DNA which might prove his innocence (or confirm his guilt). Adopting a policy of willful ignorance is nothing new for officials of the Lone Star State. Infamously, last week, the Texas State Board of Education voted to remove Thomas Jefferson from the state’s social studies curriculum because he coined the phrase “separation of church and state.” His name was deleted from a list of famous writers who inspired 18th and 19th century revolutions. He wrote the Declaration of Independence.
Six years ago, the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham was allowed to proceed, even though Governor Rick Perry and others were warned that the science used to convict Willingham of an arson that killed his three children was seriously flawed, and that the fire might have been an accident. Last Fall, Governor Perry personally sabotaged an investigation into the science used in Willingham’s case, abruptly replacing three members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission just as it was about to hear from a nationally respected forensic fire science expert, Craig Beyler, whose report concluded that the fire should not have been ruled an arson.
Well, now it’s Spring 2010, and Mr. Beyler has still not had a chance to present his findings to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, but last night, he did participate in a panel that discussed the case, and the need for better forensic science, at Georgetown Law School here in DC. According to the Innocence Project, three states (Arizona, Nebraska and Oklahoma) are considering legislative resolutions in support of using “solid science” in arson investigations.
Really? We need legislative resolutions for that?
Sadly, yes. Texas officials not only don’t endorse “solid science,” they continue to actively thwart efforts to improve the quality of forensic investigations. Executing Henry Skinner while grave doubt hangs over his conviction, when DNA tests could easily remove that doubt, is just the latest example that, for Rick Perry and company, ignorance remains the best policy.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The only defense Skinner had at trial , was to argue that the state did not investigate fully, therefore, there was a reasonable doubt.
This is a common and sound tactic for trial.
And the US Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant who declines the opportunity to perform DNA testing at trial for tactical reasons has no constitutional right to perform such testing after conviction. To recognize such a right would allow defendants to game the system by forgoing DNA testing at trial for fear that it would confirm his guilt. Then after conviction, with nothing to lose, demand DNA testing in hopes there would be degradation or contamination of the evidence that would provide the basis for more appeals.
This is exactly what Skinner is trying to pull here. First, he is trying to get around the SCOTUS ruling by not claiming a constitutional violation, but instead that under a federal civil rights statute, he should be granted access to the evidence for testing.
Second, Skinner is trying to claim that it was ineffective assistence of cousel for his attys not to have the additional items tested. However, the trial attys hired their own experts to review the state evidence. Their defense DNA expert, confirmed the DNA results (I believe the state used Roche Labs for their testing) showed Twila's and Elwin's blood on Skinner's shirt and pants.
The other defense expert, a blood spatter expert, concluded that the blood stains on Skinner's clothes were inconsistent with his
having laid on the sofa during the attacks on the victims. He found widespread amounts of blood stains on both sides, front and back of his clothing and on the lower and higher surfaces. There was medium velocity impact spatter on the front of his shirt and on all sides of his jeans. There were cast off stains on the back of his shirt and on his jeans. Medium velocity impact spatter is the result of bludgeoning someone. The cast off stains is the blood dripping off the weapon when it is raised to strike the victim.
Also, statements Skinner made during a videotaped police interview were also inconsistent with his story.
Based on this evidence and much more confirming Skinner's guilt, the trial attys did not want the additional evidence tested for trial. It was a smart decision.
No appellate court has ruled that Skinner's attys were ineffective. In fact, after reviewing the trial record and conducting the habeas corpus hearing, the US Magistrate in his findings and conclusions
stated that Skinner's trial attys provided him with quality representaion.
There is no doubt that Skinner beat Twila to death . Testing other evidence will not make it go away. The tests will either come back inconclusive or match Skinner, who will have an automatic
explanation, claiming that he was bleeding and he lives in the house , therefore, of course, it is his DNA. Even if there was evidence of an intruder, it would not make Skinner any less guilty of capital murder . At most, the defense could argue there was an accomplice, that Skinner killed Twila, stabbed Elwin, and someone else killed Randy. Not very credible and still would not be exculpatory for Skinner.
You can't go by anything Skinner claims but instead you must look at the actual documentation. For example: The Medical Examiner wrote in her autopsy report and testified at trial that there were no signs of sexual assault . That is the reason that they didn't test the rape kit.
So, these are some of the reasons why dna testing wasn't performed on all the evidence and why the state objects to it now: There is no chance in hell that it will be exculpatory and it is mere game playing.
There's so much more to this guy at http://www.hankskinner.com . Why won't he answer questions about the blood on his clothes or the codeine?
Willful ignorance is definitely the right term here! This isn't the first story I have heard of Texas thwarting DNA analysis, refusing to look at new evidence or doing anything that might possibly deprive them of adding another name to their kill list.
I won't even go into the scientific ignorance that Texas officials seem to suffer from...
Why are they so resistant to hearing evidence regarding the possible innocence of someone they are about to execute?