Nov. 20
TEXAS:
Kunkle's case may have big role to play
Defense lawyers for death row inmate Troy Kunkle said they have come one
step closer to making sure Texas courts follow an often ignored law that
could keep convicted murderers out of the Texas death chamber.
When the U.S. Supreme Court stayed Kunkle's execution Thursday, they gave
defense lawyers another chance to ensure that Texas juries can consider
circumstances that can lead a guilty defendant to commit capital murder.
**
Timeline
Aug. 12, 1984 Steven Horton killed
Oct. 17, 1984 Nueces County grand jury indicts Troy Kunkle for the capital
murder of Steven Horton
Feb. 22 1985 Jury finds Kunkle guilty of capital murder
March 1, 1985 Court assesses a death sentence following a punishment
hearing
July 18, 1989 Kunkle receives Aug. 23 execution date
Aug. 16, 1989 Court of Criminal Appeals grants a stay of execution
Aug. 26 1993 Federal district court grants stay of execution
Sept. 1, 1993 Kunkles 2nd execution date
July 13, 2001 Federal district court stays the execution
Aug. 1 2001 Kunkles 3rd execution date
July 7, 2004 Kunkles 4th execution date; U.S. Supreme Court stays the
execution pending disposition of his appeal
Oct. 4, 2004 Stay dissolves when appeal is denied
Nov. 18, 2004 Kunkles 5th execution date; U.S. Supreme Court stays the
execution pending disposition of his appeal
**
One of Kunkle's lawyers, Danalynn Recer, of the Gulf Region Advocacy
Center, said many Texas juries, including the one in Kunkle's case, did
not follow a law defined by the Supreme Court. The juries should have been
allowed to consider evidence that could sway a jury to favor a life
sentence instead of death, Recer said.
Kunkle's jury may have condemned him to die because they did not know his
background, which includes neglect as a child and bouts with mental
illness, his lawyers said.
Recer and her colleagues have not yet been able to present their case to
the Supreme Court. But with the most recent stay, Kunkle's lawyers might
get another shot.
Recer said lawyers representing the state of Texas have successfully
blocked any arguments before the high court with procedural roadblocks in
the past.
"We have been banging and banging on the courthouse door and have not been
let in," Recer said.
Lawyers from the attorney general's office could not be reached Friday
night, and they are normally not allowed to comment on pending litigation.
But in a document filed by the attorney general's office with the high
court in July, lawyers said Kunkle's claims that mitigating circumstances
should have been considered were unmerited.
It remained to be seen if the Supreme Court would hear Kunkle's case. But
there is now some indication that the justices may listen to arguments by
the state and Kunkle's lawyers.
"What we are seeing is that the Supreme Court is no longer accepting these
technicalities as excuses for not considering cases on their merit," Recer
said.
Recent changes in the law allowed Kunkle's lawyers to submit the legal
paperwork again. The most recent petition resulted in Thursday's stay,
even though defense lawyers' arguments closely matched filings that led to
Kunkle's stay in July.
In Smith v. Texas, the court gave an example of how to proceed in capital
cases where mitigating circumstances may not have been considered,
Kunkle's defense lawyers said. In that case, the justices ordered the
death row inmate be given a new sentencing hearing.
Grant Jones, the Nueces County district attorney at the time of Kunkle's
trial, said if the Supreme Court justices have any doubt, they should give
Kunkle another sentencing hearing.
Jones said the Supreme Court might be more inclined to side with Kunkle's
lawyers. He said, "The Supreme Court is drifting away from the death
penalty."
(source: Corpus Christi Caller-Times)
