Could A Civil Lawsuit Change The Face Of Death Penalty Appeals?

Most people who don’t work in the legal industry for a living generally view it as an anomalous and unpredictable beast.  It’s certainly understandable that many see it this way, I mean lawyers are expensive and laws often read like gibberish.  However, this is usually as far as the complexity goes because the justice system is actually quite predictable when it comes to results and process.  Take death row inmates for example, if a person is sentenced to this penalty it’s inevitable that an appeal will be filed.  And in most states the sentence will either be treated like a per se life sentence or, if you’re in Texas, it’s treated like a death sentence.  Another expected result is that despite all the appeals death row inmates will file, they’ll generally fall on deaf ears.  But like everything in life, sometimes even what’s predictable can end in the unexpected.

The Supreme Court is called the highest court in our land for a reason. They’re the only court that gets to choose the cases they hear, so it’s a pretty prestigious event to get your case picked.  It’s even rarer when the case happens to be a death sentence appeal.  But Henry Skinner was able to do just that.  Skinner was convicted in 1993 for a triple homicide.  Using DNA evidence, the prosecution was able to convince a jury that Skinner murdered his girlfriend and her two developmentally disabled sons in Texas.  However, Skinner claims there is untested evidence that exonerates him, evidence that was refused to be tested by the prosecution when his case was originally tried.

Now, remember how I mentioned that the justice system can be unpredictable sometimes?  Well a huge contributor to that unpredictability is attorneys.  For instance, in Skinner’s case one would naturally assume that the issue before the court is a habeas corpus writ, meaning does the untested evidence exonerate Skinner?  But you’d be wrong.  Skinner is actually trying to prove a section 1983 violation.  Now if you’re wondering what’s Section 1983 and how will it help Skinner, then you’ve come to the right place.

Section 1983 of Title 42 United States Code is a law that was originally passed way back in 1871.  The run on sentence that describes Section 1983 basically states that the law allows people to sue government officials and agencies in civil court for violation of the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws.  It’s basically a civil rights law whose popularity and use has fluctuated over the years, from the turbulent Civil Rights Era to modern day cases like Rodney King.  However, like everything in the legal system, proving a Section 1983 violation isn’t as easy as it sounds.  But winning one allows the plaintiff to claim big money damages and in some cases, like Skinner, possible exoneration.

Winning a Section 1983 case essentially requires the plaintiff to prove two elements: 1) that the person who committed the constitutional rights violation was a government actor, and 2) that the government actor’s actions actually deprived the plaintiff of his constitutional rights.  The first prong is typically easy to prove, the person either works for the government or he doesn’t.  A cop, judge, or prosecutor would all count.  However, the difficult lies in the second prong.  That’s where Section 1983 cases are generally won or loss because the conduct must be shown to impede on a constitutional right.  That kind of analysis is highly fact specific.

So why would Skinner waste his chance before the Supreme Court with a Section 1983 civil suit and habeas corpus?  It’s all about specific strategy.  In this case, Skinner would have a much more difficult time winning on habeas corpus because he would have to essentially prove that the DNA evidence exonerates him from the crime.  This type of case is difficult, time-consuming, expensive, and most of all riskier to prove than the lower standard of a Section 1983 violation.  Under Section 1983, Skinner just has to show to the court that his constitutional right to due process was violated when the prosecution refused to consider and test all the evidence against him.  The difference boils down to proving one’s innocence with possibly non-exonerating evidence or proving the prosecution screwed up, violated the Constitution, and thus Skinner’s conviction should be thrown out.  In bad TV crime drama land, this is what writers call “getting off on a technicality.”  But don’t take this to mean Section 1983 lawsuits are inherently bad for society.  It’s a good law enacted and still not repealed for a good reason, namely all the constitutional right violations that have a tendency to still be committed consistently to this day.

So will Skinner win his Section 1983 case?  Who knows, the case is still ongoing and many crucial details haven’t been released.  Though one thing is for sure, if Skinner does win it will set a huge precedent in favor of all death row inmates in America.  A precedent that sure to trigger a lot more Section 1983 based appeals.