With their client's execution for a triple homicide set for next week, Henry Skinner's lawyers are making a last bid to have so-far unexamined evidence - bloody knives, a rape kit, fingernail scrapings - subjected to DNA testing.
So, here is the question that, so far, has been answered in the negative: if a defendant deliberately bypasses the opportunity to test for DNA before or during his trial (because he has concluded that testing will only make it easier to convict him), can he later, after getting the DP, seek to play the DNA lottery, hoping that new testing will present some sort of odd, unexplained result that can muddy the waters and be spun by the anti-DP crowd and the media into a doubt that prevents his execution?
Most prosecutors say they're all for retesting trial evidence for DNA, if there is reason to believe that new tests might prove the convict's innocence, confirm his guilt or point to another perpetrator.
But most contend that a 2001 Texas statute adequately spells out criteria needed to obtain post-conviction DNA testing and prevents Death Row inmates from abusing the law to delay execution.
