PODCAST: "Reasonably suspicious podcast," October 2017, featuring Scott Henson and Amanda Marzullo, with guest appearances by Sam Sinyangwe, Kathy Mitchell, and Sukyi McMahon."
GIST: Scott (Henson) : "It lives on and we'll always wonder, I promise you. Hello, boys and girls and welcome to the October 2017 of the Reasonably Suspicious podcast covering Texas criminal justice politics and policy. I'm Scott Henson, Policy Director at Just Liberty, here today with our good friend Amanda Marzullo, whose day job is Executive Director at the Texas Defender Service.
"All right. Moving on. Robert Pruett was executed recently without DNA testing having been performed that his attorneys hoped could prove his innocence, while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals once again denied Larry Swearingen's request for additional DNA testing in a capital case. Mandy, fill in the blank. These cases show Texas DNA testing statute is?
Mandy: Misapplied. I think that if you were to look at the text of these statutes as well as the legislative history, it's very clear that the Texas legislature intended to create a very broad right for post-conviction DNA testing. That is not what is being applied or how it is being implemented by the courts. Their first duty in looking at these statutes is to discern legislative intent and implement it. That is not what's happening here. What we've had over the years is just a series of volleys back and forth between the courts and the legislature about when DNA testing is appropriate. I think this is another instance where we might see another revision to the DNA testing statute in response to recalcitrance from the court.
Scott: Right. Well, your comment about it going back and forth gets to my answer. I would say that it is inexplicably in flux. The first DNA statute we had was passed in 2001 and it was in reaction to the Court of Criminal Appeals denying DNA testing to a man who was eventually exonerated once the DNA testing was allowed. Since that time, we have gone back and forth over and over and over where the legislature passes a law, the Court of Criminal Appeals finds what they believe is a loophole to say that somebody shouldn't get DNA testing. Then the legislature comes back and changes the law and expands it to say, "No, no, that person does get testing." Then the Court of Criminal Appeals goes back and finds some other little narrow loophole that they think says that they can deny it to somebody and the legislature comes back again and we go back and forth.
It's become, actually, remarkably easy to pass some of these DNA testing laws at the legislature because they're getting used to having to correct the Court of Criminal Appeals. It's almost becoming a habit now and I don't understand why we're still doing this in capital cases. I don't understand why the Court of Criminal Appeals can look at this entire legislative history and still think, "Oh no, we we should have executions where there's DNA evidence that was never tested." What? Really? No one thinks that.
Mandy: Yeah, no one. And also it makes you wonder what the prosecutor's interest is in opposing DNA testing in some of these cases. Either they have a conviction and a death sentence that's supported by the evidence, in which case the DNA testing is only going to confirm that, or there is a problem and there's someone on the row who may innocent and testing would exonerate that person and prevent the state from carrying out a miscarriage of justice.
Scott: For that matter, if there's someone on death row who is innocent of the crime of which they were convicted, that means that there's an actual killer out in the world who has gone free. There really is no prosecutorial interest in doing this and yet they do it over and over again. So I agree, it's inexplicable to me. I don't understand why we keep having these fights and I don't understand why the laws that we have passed so far are not being applied to Larry Swearingen in particular."
The entire post can be found at:
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.ca/2017/10/reasonably-suspicious-police-unions.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c