WHERE A SUBSTANTIAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS SHOWN TO BE WRONG, A DEFENDANT SHOULD GET A NEW TRIAL

A Tennessee murder case debated yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court could set new standards that convicted felons would have to meet in federal court to prove their innocence or at least force a new hearing or trial. The appeal of Paul Gregory House, convicted in the 1985 murder of a neighbor in rural Union County north of Knoxville, is the first time the high court has considered the issue in a case involving new DNA techniques that have exonerated numerous convicts in recent years.

In arguments yesterday, the justices were sharply divided over what the current legal standard is, whether new evidence might prove House is innocent, and even about minute details of evidence in the case. The House case and others at issue are ones in which numerous appeals in state and federal courts have been exhausted. House was convicted and sentenced to death in 1986 based, in part, on the claim by prosecutors that he sexually assaulted Carolyn Muncey before he killed her. The proof, prosecutors said, was that semen on Muncey's clothing matched House's blood type. But new, more precise DNA techniques showed that the semen actually belonged to Muncey's husband, Hubert Muncey Jr. House went to federal court with that and other new evidence — including testimony from Hubert Muncey's friends that he had admitted to the slaying — and asked to be exonerated or at least be given the chance to prove his constitutional rights were violated at his trial.

House's lawyer, Stephen Kissinger of Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, began his argument to the high court with the new DNA evidence. But he was immediately cut off by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the fact that Carolyn Muncey's blood was found on House's jeans made the new DNA and other evidence irrelevant. "All of this would have made a better case for the defendant," Scalia said. "Just on the blood thing alone, I find that a difficult burden" to overcome, he said. House is on death row at Riverbend prison in Nashville.

Justice Stephen Breyer, the strongest advocate for House's position, said at one point that he would not have voted to convict House if a trial were held today. On Scalia's contention, Breyer countered that Dr. Cleland Blake, assistant chief medical examiner for Tennessee, had testified the blood on House's jeans came from sample vials collected from the victim during her autopsy. House's attorneys have argued that the blood was either intentionally or accidentally spilled onto the jeans.

Kissinger said the fact that House's trial attorney did not aggressively attack the blood evidence is one example of poor legal representation, a constitutional claim that could win him a new trial. So much time was spent debating the blood that an irritated Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who will soon retire from the high court, asked: "Are we going to discuss other evidence?" Instead, justices parsed the exact meaning of the current mind-twisting standard for getting another crack in the federal courts: "That it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence."

Deputy Tennessee Attorney General Jennifer Smith argued that the new evidence fails to "raise sufficient doubt about guilt." Again, Smith was cut off as justices returned to their debate about how the blood got on House's jeans. Smith conceded that some blood spilled out of the vials that were sent for testing, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that testimony showed the spill occurred after the FBI had already tested and found Carolyn Muncey's blood on House's jeans. And Smith said several witnesses testified they saw blood on House's jeans when they were found in his home.

In addition to debating the evidence, several justices pointed out that the new DNA evidence undermined one of the aggravating circumstances — sexual assault — that was the basis for imposing the death penalty.

A decision in the case probably will take several months. And if Judge Samuel Alito, being considered by the Senate, is confirmed to replace O'Connor, the court could decide to rehear arguments in the case.

Report here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)