Henry Skinner is sched­uled (update below) for exe­cu­tion in Texas on February 24 despite the lack of DNA test­ing of crit­i­cal evi­dence from the crime scene that could lead to his exon­er­a­tion. Skinner has always main­tained his inno­cence of the 1993 mur­der of his girl­friend and her two grown sons in Tampa, Texas. At his tri­al, the pros­e­cu­tion pre­sent­ed the results of selec­tive DNA test­ing on some of the crime evi­dence that tend­ed to prove Skinner’s pres­ence at the scene, which was his place of res­i­dence, a fact he has nev­er dis­put­ed. But the state has repeat­ed­ly refused his request to test oth­er evi­dence, includ­ing mate­r­i­al found on the vic­tim, that could point to anoth­er sus­pect. In addi­tion, an inves­ti­ga­tion by jour­nal­ism stu­dents from Northwestern University in 1999 and 2000 revealed that a key wit­ness from the tri­al had recant­ed her tes­ti­mo­ny link­ing Skinner to the crime. Texas has already exe­cut­ed a num­ber of indi­vid­u­als who may have been inno­cent, leav­ing a cloud of doubt on the fair­ness of the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem. By con­duct­ing rel­a­tive­ly rou­tine DNA tests before his exe­cu­tion, the doubts sur­round­ing Skinner’s case could be resolved one way or the oth­er. (See also Feb. 10 arti­cle by fed­er­al Judge H. Lee Sarokin (retired)).

Skinner’s attor­neys have filed motions for a stay of exe­cu­tion to allow for the DNA test­ing and are peti­tion­ing the U.S. Supreme Court regard­ing the effec­tive­ness of his tri­al coun­sel and oth­er issues in the case.

(See B. Grissom, ​“Case Open: The Investigation,” Texas Tribune, Jan. 29, 2010; Medill School of Journalism Innocence Project regard­ing Skinner; Letter of Prof. David Protess, Director Medill Innocence Project, to Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Jan. 22, 2010) Picture by Caleb Bryant Miller, Texas Tribune. See also Innocence.

Update: The exe­cu­tion war­rant for Feb. 24 was with­drawn by a Texas court because of a cler­i­cal error. A new exe­cu­tion date of Mar. 24 was set. A state­ment from Skinner’s attor­neys regard­ing this development follows:

 "Today, February 17, we received notice for the first time that the judge of the convicting court yesterday withdrew Mr. Skinner’s previously scheduled February 24 execution date, apparently upholding our challenge to the previously issued warrant of execution as void under Texas law. We are dismayed that the court chose, in the same order, to re- schedule Mr. Skinner’s execution for March 24. This unseemly haste to execute Mr. Skinner ignores the growing public concern and outcry over the unanswered questions about Mr. Skinner’s guilt. Now, more than ever, DNA testing is necessary to resolve those doubts. Setting a March 24 execution date also means that Mr. Skinner’s pending lawsuit against the Gray County District Attorney in the United States Supreme Court, seeking the much-needed DNA testing, must now be resolved under needless and entirely artificial time pressures. Given that the District Attorney stands to benefit directly from that undue haste, it is especially disappointing that the court chose to press forward with Mr. Skinner’s execution on March 24. In addition, there is a very serious legal question whether the trial court even has the authority to set an execution date for someone, like Mr. Skinner, whose post-conviction challenges to his conviction and death sentence have never been heard by the Texas courts. We remain committed to obtaining the DNA testing our client says will prove his innocence, and will take every available legal step to that end."

(STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL DEFENSE TEAM FOR HANK SKINNER REGARDING RE-
SCHEDULING OF MR. SKINNER’S EXECUTION, Feb. 17, 2010, received by email).

Citation Guide