[WCADP-list] Supreme Court Says Death-Row Inmate May Use DNA Evidence

[wcadp-list at lists.drizzle.com]

Supreme Court Says Death-Row Inmate May Use DNA Evidence 
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: June 12, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Tennessee death-row inmate can use DNA evidence to
attempt to show his innocence 20 years after he was convicted of murdering a
neighbor, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The high court's decision is significant because numerous exonerations in
recent years of death-row and other criminal defendants through DNA testing
have raised concerns among civil libertarians, prosecutors and Supreme Court
Justice
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/john_paul_stev
ens/index.html?inline=nyt-per> John Paul Stevens that an innocent person may
be executed, or already has been.

Justice
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/anthony_m_kenn
edy/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court,
said the evidence in the case was a ''close'' call for a jury. But he said
that inmate Paul Gregory House could proceed with a lawsuit in federal court
claiming innocence for the murder of Carolyn Muncey, a young mother of two,
in Union County, Tenn., in July 1985.

Twenty years after his conviction, DNA testing revealed that semen found on
the murder victim's nightgown and underwear belonged to her husband, not
House.

''This is not a case of conclusive exoneration,'' Kennedy wrote on behalf of
himself and four other justices.

 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/john_g_jr_robe
rts/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/antonin_scalia
/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Antonin Scalia and
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/clarence_thoma
s/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Clarence Thomas dissented. Justice
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/samuel_a_alito
_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Samuel Alito did not participate in the case
because it was argued before he joined the high court.

Kennedy said jurors could find reasonable doubt because DNA evidence points
to Muncey's husband as a suspect and because small blood stains found on
House's jeans may have spilled on the pants from vials of blood taken from
Muncey during an autopsy.

House, who was on parole for a sex offense in Utah, was convicted of luring
Muncey from her home by telling her that her husband, Hubert, had been hurt
in a car accident. Her body was found the next afternoon in an area where
witnesses had seen House.

His original lawyer failed to locate several witnesses who said years later
that Hubert Muncey had abused his wife, had fought with her the night of her
murder and had confessed later to killing her.

House's case had generated excitement in legal circles because it gave the
high court a chance to jump into the national debate over DNA testing and
how courts should deal with advances in evaluations of biological evidence
left at crimes scenes long ago.

''Although the issue is close, we conclude that this is the rare case where
-- had the jury heard all the conflicting testimony -- it is more likely
than not that no reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack
reasonable doubt,'' Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy said that House's revelations about DNA and the blood stains are
enough to overcome strict standards that must be met before prisoners are
allowed to re-argue issues of innocence long after their convictions.

But Roberts, in the dissent, disagreed. He said the majority had ignored a
trial judge's determination that House and several of his witnesses were
unreliable. Roberts also noted that the trial judge had found that Muncey's
autopsy blood was spilled on House's jeans after the FBI already had
determined that the blood on his pants belonged to the victim.

''Witnesses do not testify in our courtroom, and it is not our role to make
credibility findings and construct theories of the possible ways in which
Mrs. Muncey's blood could have been spattered and wiped on House's jeans,''
Roberts wrote.

The chief justice took a different approach than the majority, which based
its decision on its belief that at least one juror would have reasonable
doubt about the evidence. Roberts said he believed that at least one juror
would have voted to convict House.

The case is House v. Bell, 04-8990.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - 
To change the address where you receive these emails please send us a note
at info at abolishdeathpenalty.org.  

To unsubscribe from all future mailings simply send an email to
wcadp-list-request at lists.drizzle.com with the word "unsubscribe" in the
subject (you can leave the rest of the email blank). You will receive a
confirmation email. Be sure to respond to the confirmation email otherwise
you will not be removed from our list.

We welcome all feedback about how we are doing. Please send any comments or
criticism to info at abolishdeathpenalty.org. 

The Washington Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
It's easy to support the death penalty when you don't have all the facts
P. O. Box 3045
Seattle, WA 98114
(206) 622-8952
www.abolishdeathpenalty.org <http://www.abolishdeathpenalty.org/> 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drizzle.com/pipermail/wcadp-list/attachments/20060612/f46acb52/attachment.html