UPDATE: On February 24, 2004, the United States Supreme Court over­turned the death sen­tence of Delma Banks, Jr. by a 7 – 2 vote, con­clud­ing that Banks was denied a fair tri­al as pros­e­cu­tors did not dis­close key infor­ma­tion to the defense. The case has been remand­ed to a lower court.

Read the Opinion of the Court

Read the DPIC Press Release

UPDATE: On April 23, 2010, the Supreme Court denied cert. to review Banks’ con­vic­tion. He now faces a re-sentencing.

UPDATE: On Aug. 1, 2012, Banks and the Bowie County pros­e­cu­tors reached a plea agree­ment for a life sen­tence. Banks will be eli­gi­ble for parole in 2024.

Banks v. Dretke (formerly Banks v. Cockrell), No. 02 – 8286. 

(To be argued December 8, 2003) In an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court grant­ed cer­tio­rari in the case of Delma Banks, a Texas death row inmate who main­tains that pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct and inef­fec­tive defense coun­sel denied him a fair tri­al 23 years ago. The Court will exam­ine the com­plex his­to­ry of Banks’ appeals and a low­er court rul­ing that held that Banks could not show his attor­ney’s per­for­mance affect­ed the out­come of his 1980 tri­al. Banks’ cur­rent attor­neys assert that their client was poor­ly rep­re­sent­ed at tri­al, that pros­e­cu­tors with­held key infor­ma­tion, and that tes­ti­mo­ny from two pros­e­cu­tion wit­ness­es was unre­li­able. (Associated Press, April 21, 2003).

The Court will hear the case dur­ing its 2003 – 2004 term and will con­sid­er the following questions:

(a) the evi­dence sup­port­ing the claim was pro­ce­du­ral­ly default­ed, notwith­stand­ing the fact that there was no rea­son­able basis for con­clud­ing that coun­sel for Banks could have dis­cov­ered the sup­pressed evi­dence pri­or to or dur­ing that tri­al or state post-con­vic­tion pro­ceed­ings; and
(b) the sup­pressed evi­dence was imma­te­r­i­al to Banks’ death sen­tence, where the pan­el neglect­ed to con­sid­er that the tri­al pros­e­cu­tors viewed the evi­dence to be of ​“utmost impor­tance” to show­ing a cap­i­tal sen­tence was appropriate?
(1) Did the 5th Circuit err in reject­ing Banks’ claim under Brady v. Maryland that the pros­e­cu­tion sup­pressed mate­r­i­al wit­ness impeach­ment evi­dence that prej­u­diced him in the penal­ty phase of his tri­al, on the grounds that:
(2) Did the 5th Circuit act con­trary to Strickland v. Washington, and Williams v. Taylor, when it weighed each item of mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence sep­a­rate­ly and con­clud­ed that no sin­gle cat­e­go­ry would have brought a dif­fer­ent result at sen­tenc­ing with­out weigh­ing the impact of the evidence collectively?
(3) Did the 5th Circuit act con­trary to Harris v. Nelsen and Withrow v. Williams in hold­ing that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas pro­ceed­ings because ​“evi­den­tiary hear­ings” in those pro­ceed­ings are not sim­i­lar to civil trials?

LEGAL LINKS TO BANKS v. DRETKE

Read the Amicus Brief by the ABA

Read Delma Banks Jr.‘s Clemency Petition

Read the ami­cus brief filed by for­mer FBI Director William Sessions and two for­mer fed­er­al appeals court judges stat­ing that Banks’ tri­al was taint­ed by ​“uncured con­sti­tu­tion­al errors” that are ​“typ­i­cal of those that have under­mined pub­lic con­fi­dence in the fair­ness of our cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem.” (See Washington Post, March 13, 2003).

Read the opin­ion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (unpub­lished, August 20, 2002).

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS

SOUND PORTRAITS’ ​“PARENTS AT AN EXECUTION” — Listen to the moth­er of Texas death row inmate Delma Banks, and the par­ents of Richard Whitehead, the man Banks was con­vict­ed of killing, as they reflect on what it has been like wait­ing as Texas pre­pared for Banks’ exe­cu­tion, which was sched­uled for March 12th. See www​.sound​por​traits​.com for more infor­ma­tion, includ­ing pho­tographs of the par­ents, a mes­sage from Delma Banks to his moth­er, and addi­tion­al infor­ma­tion on Banks’ appeal for a stay of execution.

“PREVENTING A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE,” New York Times, edi­to­r­i­al, April 18, 2003.

The Justice Project Press Release: GRAVE DOUBTS REMAIN IN TEXAS EXECUTION SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 12

NCADP Press Release: U.S. SUPREME COURT GRANTS CERT IN TEXAS DEATH PENALTY CASE; DELMA BANKS, JR. DESERVES A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW, SAYS NCADP

“PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL: THE CASE OF DELMA BANKS, JR.” by George Kendall, coun­sel for Banks

Return to Supreme Court