Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 6, 2006 13:01:15 GMT -5
Mistrust
Court's decision to leave a wrongful execution inquiry with a tainted DA
clouds Texas justice.
In order to determine whether the state might have executed an innocent
man, Texas needs a clear-eyed, objective investigation into the
circumstances surrounding the conviction and capital punishment of Ruben
Cantu in 1993.
When Texas' highest court for criminal matters declined to halt the
tainted, conflict-burdened investigation, it provided only more
uncertainty.
The facts in the Cantu case are troubling. Convicted of a 1984 robbery in
which one victim was killed and the other wounded, Cantu's execution is
clouded by three witnesses' recent claims of Cantu's innocence. One
witness is the surviving shooting victim.
The integrity of the criminal justice system depends on a thorough vetting
of the evidence, old and new, to determine the truth of those disturbing
claims. What's more unsettling, this investigation is being undertaken by
the woman who, as a state district judge, reviewed one of Cantu's appeals
and signed his death warrant. The court's decision, predictably supportive
of the prosecution regardless of the facts, allows Bexar County District
Attorney Susan Reed to roll forward with an investigation that is tainted
by her clear conflict of interest.
Concern for the validity of the investigation grew with the revelation
that 2 of Reed's top investigators were recorded on a public police phone
line calling Cantu's convicted co-defendant, David Garza, a bastard and
declaring that all the witnesses, who include Garza, were lying. That
recording prompted Garza's attorney to ask the Court of Criminal Appeals
to remove Reed from the inquiry in favor of an independent special
prosecutor.
In refusing the lawyer's appeal, the court disregarded a letter submitted
to the court and signed by 22 legal scholars calling for an independent
inquiry. And the judges left the impression that a clouded investigation
into even credible allegations of a wrongful execution is good enough for
Texas justice. The judges issued no written opinion.
The situation is made worse by other Texas death penalty cases crying out
for review. A "statement of concern" by the heads of 7 justice advocacy
organizations points out that the state has executed 2 other men under
murky circumstances, Cameron Todd Willingham (based on arson evidence now
thought to be unreliable) and Carlos De Luna (possibly because of mistaken
identity).
The statement calls on the Legislature to fund the Texas Forensic Science
Commission to review the Willingham case and others that raise similar
questions of forensic science. It also calls on lawmakers to establish an
Innocence Commission to "conduct fair and independent investigations in
cases where plausible claims are raised that Texas executed an innocent
person."
If Cantu was guilty of killing a man, as the San Antonio district
attorney's office confidently claims, it shouldn't bother the lead
prosecutor to have an investigator without ties to the case giving it a
comprehensive review. Stubbornly refusing to give up the case only
underscores Susan Reed's conflict of interest. Her investigation can't
promise that, at the end of the investigation, justice will have been
done.
(source: Editorial, Houston Chronicle)
Court's decision to leave a wrongful execution inquiry with a tainted DA
clouds Texas justice.
In order to determine whether the state might have executed an innocent
man, Texas needs a clear-eyed, objective investigation into the
circumstances surrounding the conviction and capital punishment of Ruben
Cantu in 1993.
When Texas' highest court for criminal matters declined to halt the
tainted, conflict-burdened investigation, it provided only more
uncertainty.
The facts in the Cantu case are troubling. Convicted of a 1984 robbery in
which one victim was killed and the other wounded, Cantu's execution is
clouded by three witnesses' recent claims of Cantu's innocence. One
witness is the surviving shooting victim.
The integrity of the criminal justice system depends on a thorough vetting
of the evidence, old and new, to determine the truth of those disturbing
claims. What's more unsettling, this investigation is being undertaken by
the woman who, as a state district judge, reviewed one of Cantu's appeals
and signed his death warrant. The court's decision, predictably supportive
of the prosecution regardless of the facts, allows Bexar County District
Attorney Susan Reed to roll forward with an investigation that is tainted
by her clear conflict of interest.
Concern for the validity of the investigation grew with the revelation
that 2 of Reed's top investigators were recorded on a public police phone
line calling Cantu's convicted co-defendant, David Garza, a bastard and
declaring that all the witnesses, who include Garza, were lying. That
recording prompted Garza's attorney to ask the Court of Criminal Appeals
to remove Reed from the inquiry in favor of an independent special
prosecutor.
In refusing the lawyer's appeal, the court disregarded a letter submitted
to the court and signed by 22 legal scholars calling for an independent
inquiry. And the judges left the impression that a clouded investigation
into even credible allegations of a wrongful execution is good enough for
Texas justice. The judges issued no written opinion.
The situation is made worse by other Texas death penalty cases crying out
for review. A "statement of concern" by the heads of 7 justice advocacy
organizations points out that the state has executed 2 other men under
murky circumstances, Cameron Todd Willingham (based on arson evidence now
thought to be unreliable) and Carlos De Luna (possibly because of mistaken
identity).
The statement calls on the Legislature to fund the Texas Forensic Science
Commission to review the Willingham case and others that raise similar
questions of forensic science. It also calls on lawmakers to establish an
Innocence Commission to "conduct fair and independent investigations in
cases where plausible claims are raised that Texas executed an innocent
person."
If Cantu was guilty of killing a man, as the San Antonio district
attorney's office confidently claims, it shouldn't bother the lead
prosecutor to have an investigator without ties to the case giving it a
comprehensive review. Stubbornly refusing to give up the case only
underscores Susan Reed's conflict of interest. Her investigation can't
promise that, at the end of the investigation, justice will have been
done.
(source: Editorial, Houston Chronicle)