High Court Allows Tenn. DR Inmate to Use DNA...

[Anja]

High Court Allows Tenn. Death Row Inmate to Use DNA Evidence in Appeal


A Tennessee death-row inmate can use DNA evidence to attempt to show his
innocence 20 years after he was convicted of murdering a neighbor, the
Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The high court's decision is significant because numerous exonerations in
recent years of death-row and other criminal defendants through DNA
testing have raised concerns among civil libertarians, prosecutors and
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens that an innocent person may be
executed, or already has been.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court, said the evidence in
the case was a "close" call for a jury. But he said that inmate Paul
Gregory House could proceed with a lawsuit in federal court claiming
innocence for the murder of Carolyn Muncey, a young mother of two, in
Union County, Tenn., in July 1985.

20 years after his conviction, DNA testing revealed that semen found on
the murder victim's nightgown and underwear belonged to her husband, not
House.

"This is not a case of conclusive exoneration," Kennedy wrote on behalf of
himself and four other justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas
dissented. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case because it
was argued before he joined the high court.

Kennedy said jurors could find reasonable doubt because DNA evidence
points to Muncey's husband as a suspect and because small blood stains
found on House's jeans may have spilled on the pants from vials of blood
taken from Muncey during an autopsy.

House, who was on parole for a sex offense in Utah, was convicted of
luring Muncey from her home by telling her that her husband, Hubert, had
been hurt in a car accident. Her body was found the next afternoon in an
area where witnesses had seen House.

His original lawyer failed to locate several witnesses who said years
later that Hubert Muncey had abused his wife, had fought with her the
night of her murder and had confessed later to killing her.

(source: Fox News)

[marion]

Widening the Gateway

The Supreme Court makes it a little bit easier for potentially innocent inmates to get their cases heard.

The Washington Post
Tuesday, June 13, 2006; Page A20

OF ALL THE cases of possibly innocent people in state prisons, Paul House's hardly seems the most compelling. Convicted and sentenced to die in Tennessee for the murder of a woman two decades ago, Mr. House has mustered some considerable new evidence suggesting his innocence. But his claim is hardly overpowering. Ironically, that is exactly what makes the Supreme Court's decision yesterday allowing federal review of his conviction significant.

Oftentimes, serious legal deficiencies in state convictions, including capital convictions, escape federal review because of technical errors that prevented them from being raised in state courts first. Normally, the federal courts' attitude is that this is the inmate's tough luck. In recent years, however, the courts have acknowledged that in cases where an inmate has a particularly strong claim of innocence, those procedural barriers sometimes have to give way to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Yet clearing this hurdle requires an especially demanding showing -- so in practice, it doesn't offer much hope. The question in Mr. House's case was whether his showing of innocence was strong enough to let him proceed with a challenge that would otherwise be barred. The court voted 5 to 3 that it was.

Mr. House's claim seems powerful on its face. He has produced DNA evidence that semen stains left on the victim's clothing were not his but her husband's. He has offered indications that the victim's blood left on his pants might be the result of lab spillage, and not from the crime scene. And two witnesses have come forward -- years after the fact -- alleging that the victim's husband confessed to the crime. Yet as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. argued in dissent -- joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- significant evidence of Mr. House's guilt remains, and the judge who considered his new evidence up close did not find it persuasive. In other words, to let Mr. House into court, the justices have had to widen significantly the gateway for review in such cases.

But this is not, as the dissenters imply, a problem; rather, it is a good development and overdue. It does not mean that inmates will go free on inconclusive showings of innocence; Mr. House still has a long way to go to get his conviction overturned. It means only that inmates who can raise a serious factual question about their guilt should have a somewhat easier time getting into the courthouse in the first place. Given how many innocents have been wrongly convicted and later freed from death row and lengthy prison terms, opening the door for review makes a great deal of sense.

[SoulTrainOz]

Attorney says death row inmate optimistic about DNA evidence


The attorney for Paul House, a death row inmate given a new chance by the Supreme Court to prove his innocence, says they're optimistic about their chances.

House's attorney, Steven Kissinger, spoke with 6 News Wednesday about the possibilities the court's 5-3 vote creates.

"Obviously, after hearing the decision we are pleased with what has happened over the past couple of months because over that period of time, the court has carefully considered the evidence Mr. House is innocent. Today, we could not be happier," Kissinger says.

It's the first time a death row inmate has brought DNA evidence before the high court to prove his innocence. 6 News attended the arguments before the Supreme Court in January.

House was on parole for a Utah sex offense at the time he was convicted and sentenced to death in the murder of Carolyn Muncey, who lived near him in rural Luttrell, about 25 miles north of Knoxville, in 1985.

House has been on Tennessee's death row for 20 years. No one saw the crime happen, and House maintains he did not do it.

In their decision, the nine Supreme Court justices stated that with new DNA evidence, no reasonable juror would vote to convict House.

First, the case will go before a federal district court judge in
Knoxville. House's attorney will argue his client did not receive a fair trial in 1985.

If the ruling is in House's favor, a new trial could begin soon after the hearing.

If the ruling goes against House, he can petition Gov. Bredesen for release.

(source: WATE news)