1. A long time ago now, less than two weeks after I was admitted to the bar, I went to court on behalf of a man on death row with an active execution date who said he was innocent who wanted post-conviction DNA testing on items from the crime scene that could prove his innocence.
2. At the time it just astounded me that the prosecutors were opposing the testing. My client had been requesting DNA testing for some time. The case had already spent decades winding its way through the courts. So a delay of a couple of months would hardly have been a big deal.
3. And we were willing to pay for the testing, so it wasn't going to cost the state a dime.
4. I mean, from the prosecutors' perspective, what was the worst thing that was going to happen? If the DNA testing showed that my client did the crime, he would be executed.
5. And if the DNA testing failed to produce a profile (because the biological material was old and degraded), then too, because the case was in a post-conviction posture, the conviction would remain intact, and my client would be executed.
6. And of course, if the DNA testing revealed the biological material of another person – who was neither my client nor the victim – on items that were central to the rape/murder – then well jeez. The state would be saved from executing an almost-surely innocent man!
7. So I just couldn't understand what their opposition was about. Why would prosecutors oppose the testing? Even if, contra my insistent client, prosecutors thought my client was guilty, what was the harm? Before killing a man, wouldn't you want to be sure?
8. It just struck me as the height of arrogance.
9. Here we are a decade and a half later. 156 people have been exonerated from death row. Many 100s have been exonerated because of post-conviction DNA testing. And in two cases this month prosecutors are seeking to execute people without doing DNA testing.
10. Tonight, Georgia is seeking to execute a man Ray Cromartie who has always maintained his innocent. HE REJECTED A PLEA DEAL TO 7 YEARS prior to eligibility for release, because he thought he would be vindicated at trial.
11. Cromartie seeks DNA testing on evidence from the crime scene that could demonstrate his innocence. Prosecutors oppose the testing. blog.schr.org/2019/11/11/geo…
12. At the same time, in Texas, next week, prosecutors plan to execute a man Rodney Reed amid a "flood of new evidence pointing to his innocence." theintercept.com/2019/11/08/rod…
13. Reed seeks DNA testing on a braided leather belt that prosecutors say was used to strangle the victim. Ligatures frequently retain the DNA of the people who use them. Prosecutors refuse to allow the belt to be tested. theintercept.com/2019/11/08/rod…
14. I wish I could say these cases are outliers, but there are dozens, perhaps 100s around the country just like these, where prosecutors are seeking to EXECUTE people without testing the DNA. (Not to mention all the non-death row cases where prosecutors oppose DNA testing.)
15. Through decades of exonerations, prosecutors have learned nothing. They are overwhelmingly arrogant, self-satisfied people. They are careless, cruel and dismissive of the lives of others.
16. Any public official who denies a man a cheap and relatively quick means of proving his innocence BEFORE EXECUTING HIM is not fit to hold public office. To act this way is a MORAL ABOMINATION.
17. The fact that we have *normalized this behavior is unconscionable – it is a great blot on us all. We have let these power-mad prosecutors have their way for too long. The public must step in, engage in an urgent politics of now, and vote these motherfuckers out of office.
18. Update: US Supreme Court won’t halt Georgia’s plan to execute Cromartie without DNA testing the ligature used to kill the victim.
19. Further update: Georgia executed Ray Cromartie, a man who insisted he was innocent, without testing DNA that could have proved his innocence.
