Court to hear DNA pleas
By Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court opened the doors of the federal courts Monday to state death row inmates who wish to challenge their convictions based on new DNA evidence or to claim that a poorly administered lethal injection would cause them great pain.
The court's two rulings were narrow and procedural, and they are not likely to affect a large number of convicted murderers. In neither case did the justices say the inmate deserved to win. Rather, they said only that his claim deserved a full hearing.
Nonetheless, the court made it clear again that the death penalty was special and said federal judges should reopen old cases when new evidence raises real doubts. about the defendant's guilt.
DNA evidence has already freed scores of prisoners, including some who were on death row. Lawyers for the New York-based Innocence Project predicted Monday's ruling would have a broad national impact by removing a barrier to having some of these cases heard in federal court.
In the past decade, Congress and the Supreme Court have all but barred federal judges from reopening the cases of long-serving state prisoners.
The court announced two exceptions to that rule Monday: one for powerful new evidence and the other involving the method of carrying out an execution.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered both decisions for the court. With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, he has assumed the center spot when the court is closely split along ideological lines.
The DNA case was decided on a 5-3 vote, with new Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in dissent.
In 1986, Paul House, a paroled rapist and a newcomer to a rural east Tennessee town, was convicted of abducting and murdering a neighbor woman, and he was sentenced to die. But DNA tests a decade later showed the semen stains on her nightgown had come from her husband, not from House, as the jury was told.
Kennedy said the new evidence did not prove House was innocent. He had lied about his whereabouts on the night of the murder, and blood stains from the victim were found on his jeans.
Still, he said, the DNA evidence undercut the prosecution's claim that House had sexually assaulted the victim. “We conclude that this is the rare case where - had the jury heard all the conflicting testimony - it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror” would have voted to convict House, Kennedy said.
In the second case, Kennedy spoke for a unanimous court in saying federal judges should hear claims that a lethal injection may cause an excruciating death if officials do not use a sufficient amount of anesthesia.
Last year, the Lancet, the British medical journal, published a study by four doctors who said some executed men may have felt intense, burning pain from the drugs that contracted the muscles of their lungs and heart because they were not given enough anesthetic.
In response, lawyers for inmates facing execution cited the study and urged judges to intervene. Some did so. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose, Calif., stopped the execution of Michael Morales and scheduled a hearing for the fall to review California's method of carrying out lethal executions.
Other federal judges said they were barred from reopening these state cases on the eve of an execution.
In Monday's decision, the Supreme Court agreed that a federal judge in Florida may hold a hearing to consider the claims of Clarence Hill that another mixture of drugs should be used for his execution.
Kennedy stressed that Hill was not challenging the state's plan to execute him, only its method of doing so.
AP-NY-06-12-06 1817EDT
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court opened the doors of the federal courts Monday to state death row inmates who wish to challenge their convictions based on new DNA evidence or to claim that a poorly administered lethal injection would cause them great pain.
The court's two rulings were narrow and procedural, and they are not likely to affect a large number of convicted murderers. In neither case did the justices say the inmate deserved to win. Rather, they said only that his claim deserved a full hearing.
Nonetheless, the court made it clear again that the death penalty was special and said federal judges should reopen old cases when new evidence raises real doubts. about the defendant's guilt.
DNA evidence has already freed scores of prisoners, including some who were on death row. Lawyers for the New York-based Innocence Project predicted Monday's ruling would have a broad national impact by removing a barrier to having some of these cases heard in federal court.
In the past decade, Congress and the Supreme Court have all but barred federal judges from reopening the cases of long-serving state prisoners.
The court announced two exceptions to that rule Monday: one for powerful new evidence and the other involving the method of carrying out an execution.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered both decisions for the court. With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, he has assumed the center spot when the court is closely split along ideological lines.
The DNA case was decided on a 5-3 vote, with new Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in dissent.
In 1986, Paul House, a paroled rapist and a newcomer to a rural east Tennessee town, was convicted of abducting and murdering a neighbor woman, and he was sentenced to die. But DNA tests a decade later showed the semen stains on her nightgown had come from her husband, not from House, as the jury was told.
Kennedy said the new evidence did not prove House was innocent. He had lied about his whereabouts on the night of the murder, and blood stains from the victim were found on his jeans.
Still, he said, the DNA evidence undercut the prosecution's claim that House had sexually assaulted the victim. “We conclude that this is the rare case where - had the jury heard all the conflicting testimony - it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror” would have voted to convict House, Kennedy said.
In the second case, Kennedy spoke for a unanimous court in saying federal judges should hear claims that a lethal injection may cause an excruciating death if officials do not use a sufficient amount of anesthesia.
Last year, the Lancet, the British medical journal, published a study by four doctors who said some executed men may have felt intense, burning pain from the drugs that contracted the muscles of their lungs and heart because they were not given enough anesthetic.
In response, lawyers for inmates facing execution cited the study and urged judges to intervene. Some did so. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose, Calif., stopped the execution of Michael Morales and scheduled a hearing for the fall to review California's method of carrying out lethal executions.
Other federal judges said they were barred from reopening these state cases on the eve of an execution.
In Monday's decision, the Supreme Court agreed that a federal judge in Florida may hold a hearing to consider the claims of Clarence Hill that another mixture of drugs should be used for his execution.
Kennedy stressed that Hill was not challenging the state's plan to execute him, only its method of doing so.
AP-NY-06-12-06 1817EDT
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are No comments posted.