Were it not for our world gone mad, this is the sort of thing I wish I was able to report more about. According to a recent report in the Houston Chronicle it appears that an innocent man was likely executed in the state in 1993.
The prosecutor, the jury forewoman and the one lone eye-witness all seem to now believe they executed an innocent man.
From Reuters coverage of the Chronicle’s story:
Cantu, only 17 when the crime took place, was convicted of murdering Pedro Gomez during a 1984 robbery largely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Juan Moreno. Moreno, then 19, an illegal immigrant wounded during the robbery, now says he is positive Cantu was not at the scene.
Moreno twice failed to identify Cantu to police, but did so when they asked him a third time, the Chronicle said. Cantu was put to death by lethal injection in 1993, when he was 26.
“(Police) told me they were certain it was him, and that’s why I testified,” Moreno told the newspaper. “That was bad to blame someone that was not there.”
…
Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury that sent Cantu to his fate, said the entire process failed.
“We did the best we could with the information we had, but with a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we’d have gotten the right information,” she told the newspaper. “The bottom line is an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that.”
Perhaps the worst part is that Cantu could not have been executed today since the Supreme Court “ruled this year that executions are illegal for crimes committed by minors.”
In the meantime, I haven’t been able to find where I read it recently, but as I recall there has been a move afoot by lawmakers to decrease the length of time that Death Row inmates have to appeal their cases and/or prove their innocence. (I welcome any BRAD BLOG readers who might have links to post on that in comments.)
Prior to the systematic killing of thousands of innocent folks around the world, I might have liked to have spent more time in the pursuit of stopping the shameful practice of our government killing its own citizens…whether they are guilty of a crime or not. No government should be in the business of putting its own citizens to death. Period. Our country has plenty of shame to go around for this continuing and morally reprehensible practice.
(Hat-tip RAW STORY for the reminder about this story!)
Funny. I was debating a fellow over this same subject, and I cited innocent people being wrongfully executed as my main reason for being against the death penalty.
Well, not so funny.
Years ago when I was asked "Do you believe in the death penalty?", I would say "Not in Russia".
People would say, "What do you mean"?
I would say only countries or jurisdictions that have a good trial system should use that extreme. Otherwise innocent people will be put to death.
Today I would add several more places to "Not in ….".
DNA tests which release many people on death row in the US support my stance.
I hate the way our court systems are run. Money will buy you freedom, and the prosecutors and other attorneys are corrupt. They will fix evidence just to close a case. It is so hard to think about the innocent people who have been put to death. If it could happen to some, it could happen to any one of us or our family members. Sometimes all it takes is one liar who points their finger at you and says You Did It! And their are lots of liars in this world. It is very frightening.
I think I read something this summer about a law which placed restrictions on appeals, but I can’t remember anything about it.
Innocent people are executed. There was no doubt it even before the Cantu case hit the news.
Cantu was a young hoodlum who committed other crimes. In a "law and order" state like Texas, few people will shed tears for him, even though he was innocent of the crime for which he was executed.
"Good to get rid of a bad apple," goes the thinking.
The thinking should be, "This is a blot on our justice system; it isn’t just about Cantu, it’s about us."
There’s a parallel to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, isn’t there? I’ve seen a number of right-wing politicians say on TV, "These people are terrorists. They don’t have civil rights," talking in defense of "extraordinary interrogation techniques" and rendition. The fact that half the people being held are innocent of any wrongdoing, and that another quarter might simply be material witnesses, doesn’t matter to people with the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld mindset. Like Cantu, detainees are "bad guys" for whom protection by a justice system is an abstract thought.
As far as Texas is concerned, if there were criminal penalties for district attorneys and judges who allow innocent men to be executed (except for Mary Surratt and Ethel Rosenberg, it doesn’t seem to happen to women), it would stop. The D.A. who prosecuted Cantu should go to jail, no question; he tried the case entirely on the testimony of one witness, a co-defendant who had twice said, "Cantu wasn’t at the crime scene," then was "persuaded" to change his story by the cops. That was the entire case. No forensic evidence, no other witness.
That’s criminal, folks, and the fact that Cantu was a bad kid is irrelevant. A district attorney who sends someone to his death on such a flimsy basis, and a judge who allows a jury to go along by not emphasizing the circumstantial nature of the evidence in his instructions to them, are guilty of negligent homicide, in my view.
If a drunk driver can be sent away for recklessly killing innocent people (and should be), then law enforcement personnel who kill innocent people through reckless prosecutions should be liable, too. The common thread is a thoughtless disregard for human life. Cantu’s prosecution was the legal equivalent of a drunk driving case, and Cantu himself was the legal equivalent of a detainee at Guantanamo.
RLM #5
We say the US is a nation of laws. Problem is that most folk are ignorant of the law.
Not good.
There has been either a concerted effort or a wide spread coincidental series of events that make the law like the practice of medicine.
We know about as much of the alien sounding latin words used by doctors in the practice of medicine as we do about lawyers in the practice of law.
It is well known that a person has a right to appear pro se ("be ones own lawyer") but at the same time that this is quite risky.
Why? Because the practice of law, like medicine, has become so complex.
Our institutions are not able, in many cases, to determine that a mistake has been made until much later and sometimes until it is too late.
I think one reason is that the law has become so complex and a harbor for power mongers that it ends up being concentrated and centralized into only a relatively few individuals.
And as far as prosecutors are concerned, they are immune from liability so that like doctors they can bury their mistakes.
A lot of the problem with prosecutors is that getting convictions is also the way they get political power.
Lots of convictions tends to mean they are seen as being tough on crime. So they can then go on to other political positions because the people see them as protectors of the public.
The problem is that convictions become the only important thing, like a football team where wins are the most sought after part of the scene.
And since prosecutors are immune they are less reluctant to question some issues or evidence and become only concerned with getting a conviction.
If the general public was more aware of law and could watch cases and prosecutors more closely, perhaps convictions would become focal points for asking "was it a fair trial" instead of "who won".
To add to the problem the MSM becomes a filter for all things legal, and as you know, they are reality challenged at this juncture of our history.
You people are all for the slaughter of the most innocent of life. Sucking the brains out of babies heads is ok with you all, that why this blog is a joke and you will never have traction on the issue of life and death.
How many millions of babies have you all supported the death of?
Can you imagine what he was thinking? Man this is pure madness.
Ricky, I don’t like responding directly to trolls. But you deserve a spanking, whatever your age. I[m hoping you’re able to read this.
Who ever said "we people" favor abortion? That’s a ridiculous accusation to throw out at a group of people joined by their dislike of crooked elections, phony wars, and George W. Bush. I guarantee you there’s a full spectrum of views on abortion here; if you’re able, why not try to post something intelligent and see how the responses pan out?
For Dredd: If doctors can be sued for malpractice, and even held criminally negligent in rare cases (for example, if drunk or on drugs during surgery), then why can’t prosecutors be indicted for negligence in safeguarding a defendant’s rights?
Clearly Cantu’s rights weren’t safeguarded, which is the responsibility of both the defense and the prosecution. The defense lawyer received a note from the prosecution’s one witness (who was himself involved in the crime) to the effect that Cantu was not at the scene…she ignored it because he didn’t provide any details. Huh? If he wasn’t there, what details could there be? It’s like Condi Rice saying, "We got a warning a month before 9/11, but without specifics, so we ignored it."
As far as I’m concerned, the defense counsel should at least have been disbarred. Cantu could have done just as well acting pro se, even if he was a functional illiterate. As far as the prosecutor is concerned, I don’t know if he’s sleeping well at night since this came out, but knowing Texas justice, he probably is. "Just one fewer Mexican left to cause trouble." I’d have him in jail if it were up to me.
RLM #10
You wondered "why can’t prosecutors be indicted for negligence in safeguarding a defendant’s rights?"
Even tho prosecutors cannot be sued/indicted for negligence in a prosecution, they can be prosecuted for intentional wrongs.
I posted a case on another thread (link here) which deals with just a case.
What is interesting is that it is the prosecution of what was alleged to be "a terrorist cell".
Ohio once again a leader in the shameful push to decrease appeals in death penalty cases.
One of the things Betty Montgomery pushed when she ran for AG (now one of the 3 Pugs out to be Gov — they just trade the top offices around — I call them the Gang of Four) was faster executions.
Probably within the past 10 years, the Pugs got a constitutional amendment on the ballot to take out the intermediate appeals available in death penalty cases — the rationale being that since the OHSCt had to take the cases anyway, it would somehow decrease the burdens on the courts. Obtusely overlooking the fact that some cases actually get reversed at the District Court of Appeals level, and since the State is not guaranteed an appeal, the OHSCt could refuse to hear those cases.
As usual, it was presented to the proles as a money-saving option, when in reality (imho) it merely bought the state a decade or more of constitutional litigation. Naturally it passed. I’m not sure of the status of any challenges, but maybe Jeralyn at TalkLeft would know.
A really sad case is in the Ohio pipeline right now, and even though Taft has a lower approval rating than CrashCart, he has granted this guy a second stay to give more opportunity to appeal/mount a clemency case. That fact alone tells me the defendant’s case isn’t BS. His name’s John Spirko, and he sounds like a jerk and a career criminal, but the case against him was monumentally weak, they have a guy who implicated another killer who passed a polygraph, there’s evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, and they cut the defendant’s alleged co-conspirator loose completely just after Spirko exhausted his last appeal.
I saw the trial judge on the news mouthing the party line about "activist judges" overturning trial verdicts and about vaulted through the TV screen — if there was misconduct going on in his courtroom it’s not an issue of "activist appellate judges." It’s an issue of ethics and a complete lack of respect shown HIM by the prosecutor. But no, rather than be insulted by the contemptuous behavior of his prosecutor, he blames the judges who try to enforce the rules as he should have at trial.
The proposed legislation in the U.S. Congress that would limit appeals is called the Streamlined Procuedures Act of 2005. You can read more about it here and send a letter to your Senators and Member of Congress here.
"The proposed legislation, named the "Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005," would narrow the circumstances under which an inmate could seek federal review, bar the courts from considering key issues, and set arbitrary timetables for rulings…It is a frightening proposal. DNA testing has proven, without a doubt, that innocent people are sentenced to death. Closing a window of appeal increases the likelihood that they will be executed."
-Kansas City Star (MO), 07/15/05