Two of Texas’s main news­pa­pers have called for an inde­pen­dent inves­ti­ga­tion into the case of Ruben Cantu, who was exe­cut­ed in Texas in 1993. New evi­dence revealed in the Houston Chronicle ear­li­er in the year has thrown con­sid­er­able doubt on the guilt of Cantu. Susan Reed, the District Attorney of Bexar County where Cantu was tried, has refused to step down as head of the coun­ty’s inves­ti­ga­tion, even though, as a judge, she signed Cantu’s death war­rant, an appar­ent con­flict of inter­est. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to require her to recuse herself.

The Houston Chronicle wrote:

Mistrust: Court’s deci­sion to leave a wrong­ful exe­cu­tion inquiry with a taint­ed DA clouds Texas justice

In order to deter­mine whether the state might have exe­cut­ed an inno­cent man, Texas needs a clear-eyed, objec­tive inves­ti­ga­tion into the cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing the con­vic­tion and cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment of Ruben Cantu in 1993.

When Texas’ high­est court for crim­i­nal mat­ters declined to halt the taint­ed, con­flict-bur­dened inves­ti­ga­tion, it pro­vid­ed only more uncertainty.

The facts in the Cantu case are trou­bling. Convicted of a 1984 rob­bery in which one vic­tim was killed and the oth­er wound­ed, Cantu’s exe­cu­tion is cloud­ed by three wit­ness­es’ recent claims of Cantu’s inno­cence. One wit­ness is the sur­viv­ing shooting victim.

The integri­ty of the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem depends on a thor­ough vet­ting of the evi­dence, old and new, to deter­mine the truth of those dis­turb­ing claims. What’s more unset­tling, this inves­ti­ga­tion is being under­tak­en by the woman who, as a state dis­trict judge, reviewed one of Cantu’s appeals and signed his death war­rant. The court’s deci­sion, pre­dictably sup­port­ive of the pros­e­cu­tion regard­less of the facts, allows Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed to roll for­ward with an inves­ti­ga­tion that is taint­ed by her clear con­flict of interest.

Concern for the valid­i­ty of the inves­ti­ga­tion grew with the rev­e­la­tion that 2 of Reed’s top inves­ti­ga­tors were record­ed on a pub­lic police phone line call­ing Cantu’s con­vict­ed co-defen­dant, David Garza, a bas­tard and declar­ing that all the wit­ness­es, who include Garza, were lying. That record­ing prompt­ed Garza’s attor­ney to ask the Court of Criminal Appeals to remove Reed from the inquiry in favor of an inde­pen­dent special prosecutor.

In refus­ing the lawyer’s appeal, the court dis­re­gard­ed a let­ter sub­mit­ted to the court and signed by 22 legal schol­ars call­ing for an inde­pen­dent inquiry. And the judges left the impres­sion that a cloud­ed inves­ti­ga­tion into even cred­i­ble alle­ga­tions of a wrong­ful exe­cu­tion is good enough for Texas jus­tice. The judges issued no written opinion.

The sit­u­a­tion is made worse by oth­er Texas death penal­ty cas­es cry­ing out for review. A ​“state­ment of con­cern” by the heads of 7 jus­tice advo­ca­cy orga­ni­za­tions points out that the state has exe­cut­ed 2 oth­er men under murky cir­cum­stances, Cameron Todd Willingham (based on arson evi­dence now thought to be unre­li­able) and Carlos De Luna (pos­si­bly because of mistaken identity).

The state­ment calls on the Legislature to fund the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review the Willingham case and oth­ers that raise sim­i­lar ques­tions of foren­sic sci­ence. It also calls on law­mak­ers to estab­lish an Innocence Commission to ​“con­duct fair and inde­pen­dent inves­ti­ga­tions in cas­es where plau­si­ble claims are raised that Texas exe­cut­ed an innocent person.”

If Cantu was guilty of killing a man, as the San Antonio dis­trict attor­ney’s office con­fi­dent­ly claims, it should­n’t both­er the lead pros­e­cu­tor to have an inves­ti­ga­tor with­out ties to the case giv­ing it a com­pre­hen­sive review. Stubbornly refus­ing to give up the case only under­scores Susan Reed’s con­flict of inter­est. Her inves­ti­ga­tion can’t promise that, at the end of the inves­ti­ga­tion, jus­tice will have been done.

(Editorial, Houston Chronicle, Sept. 5, 2006).

The Dallas Morning News wrote:

Hits and Misses: Blessing a death case sham

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals could have struck a blow for jus­tice this week in a smarmy death case. Instead, the state’s high­est crim­i­nal court sat on its hands, essen­tial­ly bless­ing Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed’s inves­ti­ga­tion of her own office. Worse, in her pre­vi­ous job as a judge, she per­son­al­ly set the exe­cu­tion date for the man in ques­tion, Ruben Cantu. He was put to death in 1993 for a rob­bery-mur­der that has come into ques­tion because of wit­ness­es’ changed accounts. Is a dis­in­ter­est­ed inquiry real­ly too much to ask for?

(Editorial, Dallas Morning News, Sept. 2, 2006). See also Innocence.

Citation Guide