Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed recent­ly issued a report find­ing that Ruben Cantu (pic­tured) was guilty of the crime for which Texas exe­cut­ed him in 1993. However, crit­ics have not­ed that Reed was for­mer­ly a judge who han­dled Cantu’s appeal and set his exe­cu­tion date, rais­ing a con­flict of inter­est in con­duc­ing an inves­ti­ga­tion of his guilt. Moreover, many who are famil­iar with the case doubt Reed’s con­clu­sions and say the report’s find­ings do not add up. Critics of Reed’s report say it over­states evi­dence of Cantu’s guilt and gloss­es over trou­bling aspects of the case.

One claim that has raised doubts about the report’s accu­ra­cy is a find­ing that one of Cantu’s defense attor­neys solicit­ed and obtained a plea offer from pros­e­cu­tors, but that the pre­sid­ing judge in the case reject­ed the agree­ment. That judge, Roy Barrera, Jr., has main­tained that he has no mem­o­ry of the plea deal, adding, ​“I don’t think Ruben ever con­sid­ered a plea.” Andrew Carruthers, Cantu’s lead defense attor­ney dur­ing his tri­al, said that Cantu refused to plead guilty. He not­ed that if Barrera had reject­ed a plea deal, the defense would have ensured it appeared some­where in the record, which it did not.

The report’s descrip­tion of Cantu’s jail­house con­fes­sion to anoth­er inmate has also raised ques­tions. The report claims that while he was await­ing his mur­der tri­al, Cantu con­fessed to fel­low inmate Tom L. Cooresmans, who had at least eight pri­or felony con­vic­tions and was poten­tial­ly fac­ing a manda­to­ry min­i­mum jail term of 25 years in prison. The report states that the snitch was not offered any­thing for his tes­ti­mo­ny against Cantu and that he passed a lie detec­tor test about his sto­ry. The report does not men­tion Cooresmans’ ​“habit­u­al offend­er” sta­tus or the fact that pros­e­cu­tors low­ered his bond and helped him to get out of jail after he told his sto­ry about Cantu’s alledged con­fes­sion. According to Barry Scheck, co-founder of the New-York based Innocence Project, Cooresmans’ motive to lie ​“is just so obvi­ous.”

Though he praised Reed’s review of the case, Sam Millsap — the for­mer dis­trict attor­ney whose office pros­e­cut­ed Cantu and secured his death sen­tence — said he remains uncon­vinced of Cantu’s guilt. ​“I don’t think we’ll ever know. After read­ing the report, I’m even more firm in my belief that the death penal­ty should be abol­ished,” Millsap said. Millsap was not con­sult­ed by Reed in her inves­ti­ga­tion of Cantu’s guilt.

(San Antonio Express-News, July 8, 2007). Read D.A. Susan Reed’s Report. See Innocence and Executed Despite Doubts About Guilt.

Citation Guide