Here is the opinion:


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-9000.pdf

It is important to realize that the ruling permits a defendant access to testing only. He cannot get relief from the trial court's judgment. Article 11.071, is still the proper remedy for the latter.

[This message was edited by John A. Stride on 03-07-11 at .]

The ripple effects are starting ...

Convicted killer files last-minute lawsuit vs. DA to stop execution

Courtesy of Prof. David Dow, King of the Untimely Filing.

Skinner + Art. 64.01 changes = chaos?

If you came to one of our legislative updates this past summer, you heard us tell you about the Lege's response to Skinner, which expanded inmates' access to post-conviction DNA testing while creating a potential endless loop of that testing by defendants seeking to avoid or delay an execution.

Now that prediction may be coming to fruition.

Check out this article describing the debate in yesterday’s Skinner case before the CCA: http://www.texastribune.org/te...ts-stymie-dna-tests/.

I was particularly struck by this passage:

quote:

"Allowing Skinner testing at this late point in the process, [Asst. AG] Mitchell said, would set a dangerously expensive precedent for guilty inmates. In future cases, he said, prosecutors would feel obligated to test every shred of evidence to prevent a guilty defendant from delaying his sentence by requesting additional DNA results."

"Prosecutors will have to test everything, no matter what the cost," Mitchell told the court.

"Prosecutors should be testing everything anyway," [Judge] Keasler said.

If faced with a Court of Criminal Appeals decision from this case that stands for that last proposition, what will be the consequences on the front lines? LE agencies in this state can't even afford to do simple rape kit testing in a timely manner--who or what is going to pay for testing "everything" in each particular case?!?

I hope the Legislature is prepared to put their money where their mouth is. Or am I blowing this out of proportion?*

(*-entirely possible in my sleep-deprived, newborn-baby-at-home state)

Shannon,

Congrats on the new baby.

I'm sure we have nothing to worry about. I am confident the legislature will come up with the big bucks to fund DNA testing of everything. Unfunded mandates, and pushing expenses off on the counties, etc. has never been their bag.

But will the floodgates really be thrown open by a dwindling number of death sentences in this new life-without-parole era?

I honestly believe that, given any opportunity to claim something, these guys will do it. After all, DNA already showed Skinner did it yet he is requesting more. And look at Atkins, especially in light of Justice O'Connor's statement that few defendants would make Atkins claims.

I agree. But I suppose there's an argument that the financial burden may not end up being too great (at least in the context of death row defendants) because fewer and fewer defendants are being sent to death row.

Let's not forget what the SCOTUS said about the floodgates in Padilla too.

Or Melendez-Diaz.

quote:

Originally posted by David Newell:
I agree. But I suppose there's an argument that the financial burden may not end up being too great (at least in the context of death row defendants) because fewer and fewer defendants are being sent to death row.

I know Skinner is a DP case, but I don't think rule in that case or the change to 64.01 are limited to DP cases, are they?

There is no express language under either Ch. 64.01 or Skinner restricting them to death penalty cases.

Ch. 64.01 is not specifically linked to art. 11.071 and the question addressed in Skinner was broad in scope: "May a convicted state prisoner seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence assert that claim in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or is such a claim cognizable in federal court only when asserted in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254?"