tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post8896607469385842507..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Skinner case boosts chances for improving state DNA testing statuteGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-54096103154005212522011-03-11T01:05:38.398-06:002011-03-11T01:05:38.398-06:00I totally agree, Scott! It does create another ho...I totally agree, Scott! It does create another hope in the federal courts when state courts have failed. That's what Section 1983 is all about. Let's hope the Justices don't regret their decision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-13759233308345899722011-03-10T11:34:23.296-06:002011-03-10T11:34:23.296-06:00Michael, you may well be right; my own knowledge o...Michael, you may well be right; my own knowledge of the case is quite minimal. But surely you'd also agree that the SCOTUS ruling opened the door for everybody who gets turned own in Ch. 64 to file a civil rights suit. What would they have to lose now that SCOTUS says federal courts have jurisdiction?<br /><br />I was thinking less about what it meant to Skinner personally, I suppose, and more what the case means as precedent when applied down the line. As a practical matter, unless I'm misunderstanding, the decision creates a "next stop" at the federal courts for those turned down for DNA testing by state courts. And since DNA testing under Ch. 64 hasn't proven to be particularly onerous and the volume wouldn't increase significatly, I think the Skinner ruling makes the argument for Ellis' bill a lot stronger, regardless of the merits of Skinner's claims.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-86680075914599641042011-03-10T11:17:51.430-06:002011-03-10T11:17:51.430-06:00While I am against the death penalty based on my d...While I am against the death penalty based on my deeply-held beliefs against it, and because of the haphazard procedures employed by law enforcement and prosecutors, I still don't think Hank Skinner is going to get the evidence tested. Even if he does, procedurally-speaking, he doesn't deserve it, considering the overwhelming evidence against him. <br /><br />Police discovered Skinner in a girlfriend's closet, blood from both victims on his shirt, with a trail of it leading to him in the closet. He even admitted to being at the murder scene when it occurred. He was apparently passed-out drunk on a Lazy-Boy; the blood on his shirt must've gotten there from the [pick-axer who was murdering three people within feet from him while he remained sleepy night-night.<br /><br />If the evidence in question was THE basis of the state's case, or if it would absolutely prove his innocence,that would be one thing. Contemporary jurisprudence would not require the testing. He will get his day in federal court, but I think the decision will be that he's not entitled to testing in his case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com