• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Innocent Man Executed?

CBL4

Master Poster
C
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
2,346
The Houston Chronicle researched the execution of Ruben Cantu who was executed in 1993. Their conclusion is that he was innocent of the murder.

Presented with these statements [from the Chronicle], as well as information from hundreds of pages of court and police documents gathered by the Chronicle that cast doubt on the case, key players in Cantu's death — including the judge, prosecutor, head juror and defense attorney — now acknowledge that his conviction seems to have been built on omissions and lies.
Click to expand...
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/chronicle/3472872

There was only one eyewitnesses and no physical evidence. The witness has recanted:
And the lone eyewitness, the man who survived the shooting, has recanted. He told the Chronicle he's sure that the person who shot him was not Cantu, but he felt pressured by police to identify the boy as the killer. Juan Moreno, an illegal immigrant at the time of the shooting, said his damning in-court identification was based on his fear of authorities and police interest in Cantu.

Cantu "was innocent. It was a case of an innocent person being killed," Moreno said.
Click to expand...

When the crime was first investigated, there were no strong suspects. Moreno did not identify Cantu. Later, Cantu shot a police officer (he admitted it) but the investigation was too shoddy to prosecute. So the police decide to get him for the previous murderer. They showed Cantu's photo to Moreno again. He said it was not the murderer. Finally, the third time, Moreno said Cantu was the murderer:
On the first round of appeals, even the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the identification process was improperly suggestive, though the court upheld the in-trial identification and did not overturn Cantu's conviction. "In the abstract the process of showing Juan several arrays on different occasions, all containing the appellant's photograph is a suggestive procedure. Such procedure tends to highlight a particular defendant since the witness sees the same face repeatedly. Such reoccurrence of one particular face might suggest to the witness that the police think the defendant is the culprit," a February 1987 opinion read.
Click to expand...

CBL
 
This was left out:

At the time, Ewell was a seasoned senior officer who had recently been promoted to lead the homicide division. Ewell, who is now retired from the department, told the Chronicle, "I'm confident the right people were prosecuted."
Click to expand...

So there is another side to the story.
 
I am currently unaware of any defendant in the US who has been executed since the reestablishment of the death penalty who has been proven to be innocent. There have been a slew of cases where the defendant has been executed and evidence has been later brought forward that makes me say, “Wait a minute…”, but I am unaware of any where innocence was established after the fact.
 
I would note that Illinois (IIRC) took a number of men off of Death Row when DNA evidence (not available during the time of the original trial) showed that they did not commit the crime.


Found this link. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110

Looks like 4 Illinois prisioners pardoned in 2003 from Death Row.

So while I do not know the particulars of this case, it is established that some people on Death Row either did not commit the crime or upon review, could not be convicted when tried again. Given the number executed over the past decade, it is possible that at least one of them may have been innocent.

Which is among several reasons I oppose the death penalty--uneven application between the states and willingness fo Juries/Judges to send cases of less than absolute confidence to Death Row.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
As opposed to the unbiased opinion of a murder's apologists? Oh my!
Click to expand...
The Houston Chronicle documented their reasons for concluding that Cantu was innocent of the murder he was sentenced to death for. That does not automatically make them "apologists" for his crimes, merely critical of the original case.

The retired officer doesn't state why he believes that "the right people were prosecuted." In all fairness, it's quite possible the chronicle never offered him the opportunity to present a full rebuttal of their findings.
 
Hutch said:
I would note that Illinois (IIRC) took a number of men off of Death Row when DNA evidence (not available during the time of the original trial) showed that they did not commit the crime.
Click to expand...
You acknowledge in your post that this new DNA evidence shows that the convicted "either did not commit the crime or upon review, could not be convicted when tried again."
I won't belabor that point more than necessary but I would like to say that I believe that the " new DNA evidence" angle has been overplayed and has probably resulted in the release of guilty people.

I don't know the name of the guy but he was recently released based on new DNA evidence and has now been arrested for murdering a young woman. The standard explanation is that he learned his evil ways in prison. I'm very skeptical. Just because someone else's DNA was found at the scene does not mean he wasn't there.

Our justice system prefers that 100 guilty go free rather than one innocent be convicted. How about the flip side when one innocent is killed because a killer was released?
 
Random said:
I am currently unaware of any defendant in the US who has been executed since the reestablishment of the death penalty who has been proven to be innocent. There have been a slew of cases where the defendant has been executed and evidence has been later brought forward that makes me say, “Wait a minute…”, but I am unaware of any where innocence was established after the fact.
Click to expand...
But he shouldn't have to prove he's innocent. If you - or his jury - are saying "Wait a minute...", he should walk a free man.

And if the DNA raises a reasonable doubt about his guilt, he should at the minimum get a new trial if he's already ben convicted.
 
BPSCG said:
But he shouldn't have to prove he's innocent. If you - or his jury - are saying "Wait a minute...", he should walk a free man.

And if the DNA raises a reasonable doubt about his guilt, he should at the minimum get a new trial if he's already ben convicted.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that I don't know of any recent cases where a man has been proven to be innocent after his execution. There have been multiple cases where an individual has been executed on evidence or testimony that he should not have been convicted on.
 
CBL4 said:
When the crime was first investigated, there were no strong suspects. Moreno did not identify Cantu. Later, Cantu shot a police officer (he admitted it) but the investigation was too shoddy to prosecute. So the police decide to get him for the previous murderer. They showed Cantu's photo to Moreno again. He said it was not the murderer. Finally, the third time, Moreno said Cantu was the murderer:
Click to expand...

I am reminded of the plot of the film noir classic, "The Postman Always Rings Twice."
 
Last edited:
YoPopa said:
You acknowledge in your post that this new DNA evidence shows that the convicted "either did not commit the crime or upon review, could not be convicted when tried again."
I won't belabor that point more than necessary but I would like to say that I believe that the " new DNA evidence" angle has been overplayed and has probably resulted in the release of guilty people.

I don't know the name of the guy but he was recently released based on new DNA evidence and has now been arrested for murdering a young woman. The standard explanation is that he learned his evil ways in prison. I'm very skeptical. Just because someone else's DNA was found at the scene does not mean he wasn't there.
Click to expand...
Who exactly offered that standard explanation? I don't know the case, but my standard explanation would be that the guy was the sort the police would naturally suspect (violent history and that). Also, again without knowing the case, the DNA might have been found on a place which proves or strongly indicates it came from the culbrit. If for example it came from skin that was found under the fingernails of the victim, from bloodstains leaving the scene of the crime or perhaps from sperm if it was a rape-murder, then a DNA mismatch would prove more than simply that another person had been at the scene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom