Two months after coming within 47 minutes of being executed and 10 years after enlisting the help of the Medill Innocence Project, Henry “Hank” Skinner saw his chances of proving his innocence dramatically improve Monday.
In a two-line, unsigned order, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear oral arguments on Skinner’s case, probably during the court’s 2010 term, which begins in October. It will be the first case involving a “heavy” amount of Innocence Project reporting to go to the high court, though it has been involved in two other Supreme Court cases, said Medill Prof. David Protess, who leads the project.
The Supreme Court accepts only about 1 percent of requests to hear a case, Northwestern political science Prof. Mark Iris said.
“This is like winning the lottery,” Protess said. “It is a terrific development, and my students and I who have investigated this case for 10 years are thrilled.”
Twelve NU students, including four current ones, developed most of the evidence in the brief filed with the Supreme Court, he said.
At issue in this case is whether the 47-year-old Skinner, who in March found out his execution was being delayed while eating his last meal, is entitled under federal civil rights law to request DNA tests on biological evidence, Protess said.
Initial DNA testing proved Skinner was at the scene of the murder of a woman and her two grown sons in Pampa, Texas in 1993, but further testing indicated he may be innocent. That testing was eventually stopped. The Medill Innocence Project has been fighting to allow it to continue, but state and federal courts have ruled Skinner does not have to right to additional testing after his conviction.
The Skinner case could set a precedent on the larger issue of whether DNA testing is a civil right of criminal defendants, said Protess, who predicted it could affect “hundreds of prisoners in similar situations.”
DNA evidence has exonerated 254 convicted felons, according to the project’s website. That large number made Skinner’s supporters hopeful the Supreme Court would take up the case.
“This was the right case at the right time,” Protess said. “It’s appalling to think that in our modern day society, we would put a man to death without testing evidence that could determine conclusively whether he’s guilty.”
Protess expressed optimism that the Supreme Court would rule in Skinner’s favor. The court agreeing to take up the case shows it is ready to decide on the issue of DNA testing as a civil right, he said. The court takes cases only with the consent of at least four justices.
Recently the court has ruled in favor of defendants on criminal rights issues, including the May 17 decision to prohibit juveniles convicted of non-murder cases from being held in prison for life without the possibility of parole. In that case, as in other recent cases, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with the four liberal members of the court.
Though one of defendants’ fiercest advocates on the court, Justice John Paul Stevens (Law ’47), is retiring before the October term, his replacement is not expected to change the dynamics of the court. President Barack Obama has nominated current Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who if confirmed is expected to vote with the liberal bloc.
Protess said he will attend oral arguments and may bring students with him.
“I wouldn’t miss it,” he said.
Until then, the Medill Innocence Project will use the time before the case is decided to try to dig up more evidence and pursue more leads in Texas.[email protected]
