Exoneration in the Eleventh Hour

11/09/11

Take for example, Henry James, who was convicted in 1981 of raping a neighbor at knifepoint. Following his conviction, he was incarcerated in the Louisiana State Penitentiary for nearly thirty years until, through the efforts of attorneys from Willkie Farr via the Innocence Project, was freed just weeks ago.

Now, according to the November 7^th foxnews.com article, “Texas court puts off execution due to legal change.” Could another prisoner, perhaps wrongly convicted, go free?

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

In recent days, the state of Texas' Court of Criminal Appeals issued a reprieve for one Henry Watkins Skinner, who was scheduled for execution on Wednesday, November 9^th. Watkins was convicted of killing his girlfriend and her two adult sons in 1993. In brief, Skinner was shown, via testing, to have blood of two of the three slain victims on him. However, Skinner maintains his innocence, saying he couldn't have committed the killings, as he was passed out after having consumed both vodka and codeine.

Per the article, the court was quoted as saying in its ruling: “We find that it would be prudent for this court to take the time to fully review the changes in the statute as they pertain to this case.” The court is referring to changes in a state law that took effect September 1^st, that Skinner's attorneys argue could make new DNA testing possible for their client. Per the article, the law “allows an offender to request DNA tests on evidence even if his defense trial strategy was to refuse the testing.”

In addition to Skinner and his attorneys were adamant that disallowing further DNA testing would result in executing an innocent man. Had Skinner been executed it would have made him the 13^th inmate to die from lethal injection in Texas, in a state that tops the list for death penalties.

• Search Legal Jobs
• Search Articles
• Employer Listing

United States

Search jobs

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

Select In-House Law Firms Government Recruiters Public Interest

Search Employer

Rob Owen, Skinner's lead appeals attorney, said in a statement emailed by his office, per the article: “The Court of Criminal Appeals, with its decision today, has ensured that Mr. Skinner's request for DNA testing will receive the thorough and serious consideration it deserves. We are grateful for the Court's action and look forward to the opportunity to make Mr. Skinner's case for DNA testing in that forum.”

However, the prosecution argues that Skinner's appeal is nothing more than a rouse to delay his execution, that none of his claims about the evidence are new, and that the issue has already been decided by the courts.

Last year, only an hour remained until Skinner's scheduled execution before the U.S. Supreme Court stopped it. Skinner maintained that the prosecution was withholding evidence he wanted tested. Following that decision, the court ruled Skinner could in fact sue to obtain the evidence, but failed to address if prosecutors would be forced to furnish it.

With the vast advances in technology, enabling more sophisticated testing of DNA than ever before, it is frightening to consider that any court could withhold the opportunity for exoneration from anyone, especially with the circumstances as controversial as they appear to be in this case. It seems it should go without saying that such DNA testing should be made available, immediately, lest us not forget that Lady Justice wears a blindfold – with good reason.