Congratulations, Hank Skinner

I am pleased to info you that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear Hank Skinner's petition for a writ of certiorari.

I watched it as it was announced on SCOTUSblog. I found one story so far that has beat me to the posting punch. I'm not sure how they did that, but I don't really care. I'm pleased for Hank Skinner, his family, his defense team, and all those concerned that we are incarcerating, even executing innocent people.

Here's what this means. First and foremost, Texas will not be able to execute Hank Skinner until the Supremes have ruled on his petition. That petition will not be argued until their next session, some time next fall.

If the Supremes at that point decline to issue a writ, Texas will be free to proceed with the execution. It will take Texas a minimum of a month to do so, because their law requires one month between the signing of the death warrant and executing the prisoner.

If the Supremes issue a writ of certiorari, it will instruct a court somewhere (I'm not sure which court) to hear Skinner's case that refusing to test or release all potentially probative DNA material before executing him would violate his civil rights.

In either case, the decision today means that Hank's case will still be active as Rick Perry is fighting to remain governor.  Given that Perry is already trying to muzzle the commission investigating the Todd Cameron Willingham investigation, this will put additional pressure on Perry.

We'll have to see how it all plays out.

The Court's complete order list for today is here. Search it for the brief paragraph regarding Hank. I count 6 motions for writ granted, 174 denied.

UPDATE

The Brandi Grissom of the Texas Tribune has been following the Hank Skinner case for a while. Her post on this morning's developments is here.  She has a quote from Rob Owen, Hank's attorney.

That decision represents the necessary first step to our eventually obtaining the DNA testing that Mr. Skinner has long sought. We look forward to the opportunity to persuade the Court that if a state official arbitrarily denies a prisoner access to evidence for DNA testing, the prisoner should be allowed to challenge that decision in a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Rob Owen clarifies where I confused. I said I wasn't sure which court might be required by the Supremes to hear Hank's civil rights case. Hank is claiming a violation of his federal civil rights, so the case would of course be heard in a federal court rather than a Texas court. Beyond that qualification, I'm not sure which court would be instructed to hear Hank's case should the Supremes issue the requested writ of certiorari.

Hank Skinner Update: No Decision Today

The Supreme Court has handed down its rulings for today, 17 May 2010. There is no mention of Hank's petition for a writ of certiorari.  The next time the court will announce its rulings is next Monday, 24 May.

So that you understand how difficult it is to get the Supremes to grant the sort of relief requested by Hank Skinner, I counted the number of petitions for writ granted (2) and the number denied (228). That's less than one chance in 100.  (I have a math background. Don't try this at home.)

I've been anxiously awaiting word on Hank's petition. I guess I can take the tension I feel, multiply by infinity, then maybe have some sense of what Hank and Sandrine and Rob Owens and the others might feel. (Once again, do not try such emotional math at home.)

Those of you who wish to read of Supreme Court decisions as they are being announced, I recommend SCOTUSblog.  SCOTUS is the acronym for Supreme Court of The United States. Hopefully, that will make the name of the blog self-explanatory.

When the court hands down its decisions, usually Mondays beginning at 10 AM eastern time, SCOTUSblog has a reporter in the courtroom sending back information on the decisions as they are announced in open court. You can follow the live-blog of the court session from the SCOTUSblog home page. It's pretty cool, actually.

During that live-blog session today, the reporter provided the link to the written summary of decisions. There are far too many decisions to speak to each individually in court, so the court speaks briefly to just a few. I followed the link provided by the in-court reporter, searched that document for Skinner, and came up with zero hits. I then went line-by-line searching and counting, so you don't have to. Unless I'm missing something, no decision today. Maybe next Monday.

And by the way, I guess I was wrong yesterday when I predicted the court would have a decision today.

Hank Skinner Update: Tomorrow May Be the Day

Sunday, 16 May 2010

I think tomorrow is the day Hank Skinner will learn whether or not the Supreme Court will consider in full court his request for a writ of certiorari.

Seven weeks ago I predicted, based primarily upon my utter ignorance of Supreme Court procedures, that the Supremes would not respond to Hank Skinner's request for a writ in less than a month. (I also explained what a writ of certiorari was, and I seem to have gotten it correct. It was one of my more lucid moments.) Others were saying the Supreme Court might reply within days or weeks, but I was confident no bureaucracy could respond faster than Texas when it finally has the opportunity to execute someone.  Even in Texas, that process takes a month from signing the death warrant to pushing the needle.

One month after my uninformed prediction, the Supremes ruled against a bunch of appellants but postponed a decision on Hank's case for one week. That week passed, and the Supremes then ruled against another bunch of appellants but postponed a decision on Hank's case for two more weeks. It's now been seven weeks since Scalia put a hold on Hank Skinner's execution. That seven weeks works out to the "we-can-now-execute-him" Texas minimum, plus three weeks of announced delays.

I don't think there will be another delay. The Supremes met in conference Friday, and they will announce the results of that conference tomorrow. I think they will make known their decision regarding Hank Skinner. 

If they rule in his favor, they will be ruling only to consider his request in full court during their next term, which begins in October.

If they rule against him, that means there will be no more impediments to Texas executing him. Everyone will be back to asking Rick Perry to intervene. Unfortunately, I don't believe Rick Perry will do so. I can't get inside that man's head, but it sure seems as if he was going to remain mute last time, when Hank came within forty minutes of being executed. I'm not sure what calculations are going on inside that "I-am-destined-to-be-President" brain, but I suspect political variables are more common and more dominant that justice variables.

I think the die has been cast. Tomorrow, we shall see.