Post by Anja on Jun 10, 2006 4:19:26 GMT -5
DA stays in charge of execution probe
A judge ruled Friday that he has no power to remove District Attorney
Susan Reed from an investigation, even though critics say she has a clear
conflict of interest when it comes to examining allegations that a San
Antonio man may have been wrongfully executed.
The ruling momentarily settled a dispute about who should delve into
questions about whether Ruben Cantu was innocent when he was executed in
1993. Critics have challenged Reed because her role in the case has
changed over time.
She reopened the case last year after three witnesses came forward
claiming firsthand knowledge of Cantu's innocence, but 13 years ago, as a
judge, she reviewed one of his appeals and ultimately set his execution
date.
The issue was forced into court Friday by Cantu's co-defendant David
Garza, an inmate who has told conflicting stories over the years. Garza
now insists Cantu was innocent, but doesn't trust Reed to investigate
fairly and has requested that a special prosecutor be appointed in her
place.
Garza's concerns about Reed's dual roles were echoed in a letter that his
attorney, Keith S. Hampton, tried to enter into evidence at Friday's
hearing. In it, 22 professors of legal ethics concluded that Reed and her
staff should be disqualified.
Hoping the district attorney would admit to an emotional stake in the
case, Hampton forced Reed to testify, a move prosecutors resisted, saying
it was a ploy to intimidate and harass her. But Reed appeared less
intimidated than irritated as she listened to the lawyer's questions.
"As you sit here today," Hampton asked Reed, "do you have any knowledge
that leads you to believe you ordered the execution of an innocent man?"
Reed didn't directly answer. She said she wasn't a witness in the case and
couldn't draw any conclusions about Cantu's guilt or innocence this early
in the investigation.
Asked if her investigators would examine her own role in the case as a
judge, Reed said she didn't see why they should.
"I didn't do anything criminal in this case. Don't look at me like that,
counsel," she added, scolding the defense lawyer. "I didn't sit in the
witness chair and lie."
This was a jab at Juan Moreno, the witness who testified convincingly
against Cantu years ago, but now says he lied after police repeatedly
pressured him into accusing Cantu.
Apart from Reed's 10 minutes on the witness stand, prosecutors did
relatively little talking. Most of the roughly 90-minute hearing was
dominated by State District Judge Mark Luitjen's questioning of Hampton.
Repeatedly, Hampton tried to persuade the judge that even Reed's limited
role in sending Cantu to the execution chamber made her "the exact wrong
person in the universe to investigate this case."
Supporting his argument, Hampton offered the letter from 22 law
professors, who said Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
prohibit lawyers and their co-workers from taking part of any case they
may have previously ruled on as a judge.
"The state's paramount interest is not to convict but to see that justice
is done," one of the professors, Robert P. Schuwerk of the University of
Houston Law Center, said by phone. "If fulfilling that interest would
expose the judge as a person who made a fatal error, literally, signing
the death warrant of someone who wasn't guilty, that seems to create a
conflict between the judge's personal interest and the state's interest in
seeing that justice was done."
Prosecutors, however, objected to the professors' letter as hearsay and,
outside the courtroom, Reed's chief deputy ridiculed the notion that Reed
should be a suspect in her own investigation. First Assistant District
Attorney Cliff Herberg said Reed's judicial role in the Cantu case was
minimal and that she simply followed the law when she set his execution
date.
Ultimately, Luitjen said he could find nothing in the law permitting
judges to remove prosecutors from their own investigations, at least not
prior to an indictment being issued.
(source: San Antonio Express News)
A judge ruled Friday that he has no power to remove District Attorney
Susan Reed from an investigation, even though critics say she has a clear
conflict of interest when it comes to examining allegations that a San
Antonio man may have been wrongfully executed.
The ruling momentarily settled a dispute about who should delve into
questions about whether Ruben Cantu was innocent when he was executed in
1993. Critics have challenged Reed because her role in the case has
changed over time.
She reopened the case last year after three witnesses came forward
claiming firsthand knowledge of Cantu's innocence, but 13 years ago, as a
judge, she reviewed one of his appeals and ultimately set his execution
date.
The issue was forced into court Friday by Cantu's co-defendant David
Garza, an inmate who has told conflicting stories over the years. Garza
now insists Cantu was innocent, but doesn't trust Reed to investigate
fairly and has requested that a special prosecutor be appointed in her
place.
Garza's concerns about Reed's dual roles were echoed in a letter that his
attorney, Keith S. Hampton, tried to enter into evidence at Friday's
hearing. In it, 22 professors of legal ethics concluded that Reed and her
staff should be disqualified.
Hoping the district attorney would admit to an emotional stake in the
case, Hampton forced Reed to testify, a move prosecutors resisted, saying
it was a ploy to intimidate and harass her. But Reed appeared less
intimidated than irritated as she listened to the lawyer's questions.
"As you sit here today," Hampton asked Reed, "do you have any knowledge
that leads you to believe you ordered the execution of an innocent man?"
Reed didn't directly answer. She said she wasn't a witness in the case and
couldn't draw any conclusions about Cantu's guilt or innocence this early
in the investigation.
Asked if her investigators would examine her own role in the case as a
judge, Reed said she didn't see why they should.
"I didn't do anything criminal in this case. Don't look at me like that,
counsel," she added, scolding the defense lawyer. "I didn't sit in the
witness chair and lie."
This was a jab at Juan Moreno, the witness who testified convincingly
against Cantu years ago, but now says he lied after police repeatedly
pressured him into accusing Cantu.
Apart from Reed's 10 minutes on the witness stand, prosecutors did
relatively little talking. Most of the roughly 90-minute hearing was
dominated by State District Judge Mark Luitjen's questioning of Hampton.
Repeatedly, Hampton tried to persuade the judge that even Reed's limited
role in sending Cantu to the execution chamber made her "the exact wrong
person in the universe to investigate this case."
Supporting his argument, Hampton offered the letter from 22 law
professors, who said Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
prohibit lawyers and their co-workers from taking part of any case they
may have previously ruled on as a judge.
"The state's paramount interest is not to convict but to see that justice
is done," one of the professors, Robert P. Schuwerk of the University of
Houston Law Center, said by phone. "If fulfilling that interest would
expose the judge as a person who made a fatal error, literally, signing
the death warrant of someone who wasn't guilty, that seems to create a
conflict between the judge's personal interest and the state's interest in
seeing that justice was done."
Prosecutors, however, objected to the professors' letter as hearsay and,
outside the courtroom, Reed's chief deputy ridiculed the notion that Reed
should be a suspect in her own investigation. First Assistant District
Attorney Cliff Herberg said Reed's judicial role in the Cantu case was
minimal and that she simply followed the law when she set his execution
date.
Ultimately, Luitjen said he could find nothing in the law permitting
judges to remove prosecutors from their own investigations, at least not
prior to an indictment being issued.
(source: San Antonio Express News)