Reply With Quote
This is why the death penalty should not exist!!
Executed man may have been innocent
Witness, co-defendant tell newspaper man wasn't guilty
HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- Doubts are being cast on the guilt of a Texas man executed more than a dozen years ago after the crime's lone witness recanted and a co-defendant said he allowed his friend to be falsely accused under police pressure, the Houston Chronicle reported Sunday.
Ruben Cantu was 17 in 1984 when he was charged with capital murder in the fatal shooting of a man during an attempted robbery in San Antonio. The victim was shot nine times with a rifle before the gunman unloaded more rounds into the only eyewitness.
The eyewitness, Juan Moreno, told the Chronicle that it wasn't Cantu who shot him. Moreno said he identified Cantu as the killer during his 1985 trial because he felt pressured and was afraid of authorities. (Watch the reporter investigating the case -- 3:16)
Meanwhile, Cantu's co-defendant, David Garza, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying he allowed his friend to be accused, even though Cantu wasn't with him the night of the killing.
Cantu was executed at age 26. He had long professed his innocence.
"Part of me died when he died," said Garza, who was 15 at the time of the murder. "You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person."
Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury that convicted Cantu, said the panel's decision was the best they could do based on the information presented during the trial.
"With a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we'd have gotten the right information," Ward said. "The bottom line is, an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that."
Sam D. Millsap Jr., then the Bexar County district attorney who decided to charge Cantu with capital murder, told the newspaper he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from an eyewitness who identified a suspect only after police showed him Cantu's photo three separate times.
On the night of the attack, 19-year-old Moreno and his friend, 25-year-old Pedro Gomez, were sleeping in a house they were helping build for Moreno's brother. Burglars had recently struck, so they were guarding the home, located across the street from the trailer where Cantu lived.
Both were awoken by a pair of teenagers demanding money. The older of the two carried a .22-caliber rifle. Gomez was killed; Moreno was shot but survived.
Afterward, Moreno described his attackers as two Mexican-Americans he thought lived nearby.
After a South San Antonio High School teacher mentioned that students were saying Cantu had done the killing, police showed Moreno photos of five Hispanic men, including Cantu. Moreno, however, did not identify Cantu as his attacker and the case appeared closed.
About four months later, Cantu was involved in a bar shooting that injured an off-duty police officer. Cantu said the shooting erupted over a pool game and that he fired only when the officer flashed a gun and threatened him. The officer later said Cantu shot him four times in an unprovoked attack.
That case against Cantu was dropped.
"There was an overreaction, and some of the evidence may have been tainted. It could not be prosecuted," said former homicide Sgt. Bill Ewell, who oversaw the investigation.
Ewell, a friend of the officer, said the bar shooting prompted him to reopen the Gomez murder case.
He sent a bilingual homicide detective to show Cantu's photo to Moreno for the second time. Moreno still did not identify Cantu.
The next day, Ewell sent out a different bilingual detective who brought Moreno, who was then an illegal immigrant, back to the police station. Moreno was again shown Cantu's photo along with four others. The officer's report indicates that Moreno picked out Cantu, then signed and dated the back of the photo.
But the photo submitted into evidence at trial was not dated on the back, according to trial transcripts. Moreno said he felt compelled to do what police wanted, even though he knew it was wrong.
"The police were sure it was (Cantu) because he had hurt a police officer," Moreno said in a recent interview. "They told me they were certain it was him, and that's why I testified."
Ewell, now retired, told the Chronicle, "I'm confident the right people were prosecuted."
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
This is why the death penalty should not exist!!
Sounds like a poor case from the get go. This still doesn't sway my support of the death penalty.
For this one case, even if it is proven that he was innocent, I can show you a hundred cases where someone was released from prison and killed again. All this case represents is that the system isn't perfect. Something most of us already know.
Cantu's co-defendant, David Garza, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying he allowed his friend to be accused, even though Cantu wasn't with him the night of the killing.
Then you probably shouldn't have let him take the blame knowing that, then....you think?"Part of me died when he died," said Garza, who was 15 at the time of the murder. "You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person."
Alot of innocent ppl are executed. It's amazing when I watch "MSNBC Investigates" or those other do entaries, and you learn about ppl who did 20 years on death row and were released because of new DNA testing. My God, it's just sad.
They should have dubya as governor, since he swears that not one of the 500+ people executed under his no-pardon governorhsip was innocent.
I don't think the choice is that either we have the death penalty or we release prisoners from prison to kill again. Once you get to the phase where the jury decides whether to sentence the party to death, the only other alternative is life in prison. Crimes committed by parolees doesn't support or provide evidence against the death penalty.
What's sad is when you realize that race is a factor when it comes to being sentenced to death. How can the death penalty be a fair and just form of punishment if it is far more likely to be levied on a minority?
Funny how those same people who want to save 'the innocent" are silent when it come to this subject.
I agree.
The problem is that even people who are serving "life" sentences can kill again. It may be another inmate or a guard but that happens. "Life" sentences are not always for the persons life either. Sometimes people are released early for good behavior or have the sentences cut short for other reasons.
If someone was on death row for 10-20 years and released due to new evidence or for other reasons, then I don't see how that would be any different than if the person were sent to prison for life and spent that same time behind bars.
I totally believe that there has been innocent people who have been executed. But what percentage of executed people are these cases? 1% or less? How many cases of a person who later was proven innocent after being executed are there? I know of several cases of people being put on death row and then released before, but none proven after the fact.
If you are sentenced to "life" in Texas, you are not eligible for "good conduct" time off of your sentence.
So, what you're saying is that we should sentence the condemned to death and hope that the exculpatory evidence comes to light within 10 years?
Also, I don't this for a fact, but I would imagine that serving 10-20 years on death row is nothing like serving 10 to 20 years of a life sentence. I think the mental and emotional trauma alone would make the time served much harder on the individual.
Isn't one innocent person being executed enough? How many do you want or need to realize that the "imperfect system" that you described shouldn't have this punishment that can't be taken back once administered?
Kill 'em, and let God sort them out.
I would agree with that. Unlike prisoners in the general population, death row inmates are out of their cells only 1 hour per day and are confined by themselves the rest of their hours. The 1 hour they get free is consumed with bathing and offers little possibility for recreation. Being on death row is nothing at all like being in general population, save the fact that in each instance, the person is incarcerated.
As for the subject, the number of recent instances in which exculpatory evidence has come to light concerning a death row inmate (or one who has already been executed) is relatively staggering. I don't understand the societal rush to execute people when prosecuting crimes is a fairly imprecise science. Even the DA who prosecuted Cantu admits to that. I can understand execution in open-and-shut cases with undisputed and corroborated scientific evidence or direct testimony. In those instances, there is virtually no doubt that the convicted defendant has done the crime. But in cases involving only cir stantial evidence (and little forensic or scientific evidence) seeking death strikes me as hubris on the part of the DA, who has most of the advantages in a criminal trial.
It's remarkable that some are unaffected by the execution of someone who didn't commit murder.
Thank God I'm white.
Are you a lawyer? Just asking not being a smartass.
I'm not saying that at all. Being convicted and sentenced to death is the threshhold or litmus for deserving a death sentence. The appeal process is just the system going the extra mile to ensure the verdict and sentence were just. If executions were carried out the day of the sentencing I could see some valid arguments against it. Just as you can serve 30 years of a life sentence al while being truly innocent, you can serve that same time mistakenly on death row and even be put to death. No, it's not right in that case, but I feel that is a small price to pay overall.
I'm not. The death penalty is expensive and there is not relevent evidence to show that it deters heinous crime. It takes a life - putting a life in jail forever also, effectively, takes it from society's point of view. "Though shalt not kill" is pretty clear, IMO.
Killing of unborn children is murder.
Happy?
No, one person wrongly executed isn't enough. Why should anyone be imprisoned if they could be innocent? Oh, is serving 20 years only to be released after you are eventually found innocent a fair deal? How can anyone be compensated for either loss? They can't be. But I'd like to wager that there are more innocent people serving life prison sentences than there are on death row.
Yes, also some states have prison escapes where lifers get out and kill or commit other crimes.
Several weeks ago, a killer on Texas death row WALKED out of prison after changing clothes. What, exactly, is your point.
The fundamental difference, of course, is that someone who is discovered to be innocent after 20 years of a life imprisonment can still be released, while someone who is discovered to be innocent after his execution is still dead.
I find that difference to be rather significant -- the State can at least try to compensate for lost years spent in prison and the person who has been imprisoned can at least have the opportunity to continue living a life (visiting family, developing friendships, and other such things) even if that life is one of confinement. The State equally can't compensate for someone who has been wrongfully executed, but it also has taken away the opportunity for that person to live a life.
I don't see how the State's execution in that cir stance is any different, really, from the crime that lead to the execution. In both instances, someone lost a life without any justifiable reason.
And, for the record, in capital cases Texas offers only 2 possible punishments for a conviction: death or life without possibility of parole.
well I guess it boils down to wether you think it is more important to risk executing innocent people so you can feel safe, or pay more taxes to keep guilty people in prison for the length of their lives. Me, I'd rather pay the taxes
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
