Court renders justice in case of Paul House

Supreme Court says that DNA evidence could have changed jury's decision

DNA testing is now a routine part of criminal investigations; the result of that testing is available for juries. Yet many offenders who were convicted before DNA became such a factor of certainty in criminal justice are now in prison. When a convicted offender presents substantive evidence that DNA testing could bolster a claim of innocence, he or she should be allowed to have it considered. One such offender is Paul Gregory House, who was convicted in the 1985 murder of Caroline Muncey in Luttrell, Tenn. DNA testing wasn't available when House went to trial. Instead, prosecutors used blood typing to point out at trial that semen found in Muncey's clothing was consistent with House's blood type.

More than a decade after House was convicted and sentenced to death, DNA tests indicated that the semen on Mrs. Muncey's nightgown and underwear came from the victim's husband, not from House. Since the prosecutors convinced the jury that House raped, then killed Mrs. Muncey, the semen evidence was crucial to the motive ascribed to him.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court made exactly the right decision in the House case. In a 5-3 decision, the court said that House can use the DNA evidence to attempt to prove his innocence. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. had not joined the court in time to participate in the decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized that "this is not a case of exclusive exoneration," but reasoned that the DNA information - if it had been available to jurors - could have resulted in a different outcome at the trial. The dissent, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, pointed out that the trial judge found House and several witnesses who testified in his behalf to be unreliable.

There is no question that this is a complex case. Since House's conviction, other witnesses have surfaced who implicated Mrs. Muncey's husband. On the other hand, House's alibi for the evening of the murder always has been shaky. And just because the semen on Mrs. Muncey's clothing wasn't House's does not mean House is innocent. But the only way the specifics of this case can be examined is by allowing House to present them in court. As long as this nation grapples with pre-DNA convictions, it must allow offenders a reasonable opportunity to get new DNA evidence before a judgeand jury.The need for that opportunity is particularly acute when the life of the convicted is at stake.

Report here

Another comment on the House case:

In a ruling that could affect death row inmates across the country, the nation's highest court for the first time cited DNA evidence in clearing the way for a condemned Tennessee prisoner to argue that he's innocent of the crime of which he was convicted. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Monday in the northeast Tennessee murder case of Paul House could help other death row inmates get new court hearings based on DNA or other old evidence.

Among those cases is that of Memphis-area man Sedley Alley, who is scheduled for execution on June 28 and is fighting in two separate courts for the right to conduct DNA tests.

If jurors in House's 1986 trial had heard "all the conflicting testimony" and known about the DNA evidence, they probably wouldn't have voted to convict him, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. The justices stopped short of exonerating House, saying his proof was not strong enough for them to release him from death row.

House's case now goes back to U.S. District Court in Knoxville for a judge to decide whether he received a fair trial, said Stephen Kissinger, House's federal defender in Knoxville. The federal judge could order a new trial, in which a jury could hear new DNA and other evidence.

"This is huge," said Bradley MacLean, a Nashville attorney who represents death row inmates. It is the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of an inmate on an actual innocence claim based on newly discovered DNA evidence, MacLean said.

House was sentenced to death 20 years ago for the rape and murder of Carolyn Muncey, a neighbor in the town where they lived, Luttrell, Tenn. "This is not a case of conclusive exoneration," Kennedy wrote on behalf of himself and four other justices. "Although the issue is close, we conclude that this is the rare case where - had the jury heard all the conflicting testimony - it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack reasonable doubt," Kennedy wrote. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate because the case was heard before he joined the court.

Kennedy wrote that jurors could find reasonable doubt because DNA evidence found on the dead woman's underwear belonged to her husband, not House, undermining the prosecution's argument that rape was House's motive for killing. Kennedy also wrote that other evidence from witnesses points to Muncey's husband as a possible suspect and that blood found on House's jeans believed to belong to the dead woman could have been spilled from samples taken during her autopsy.

Tennessee Attorney General Paul G. Summers issued a statement saying the opinion does nothing more than allow House to proceed in federal court with his claims. "It does not relieve him of his conviction or death sentence, both of which the State believes to be appropriate and just," Summers wrote. "We remain confident that the State will prevail on the merits of the habeas case and that the victims of House's senseless crime will ultimately see justice done."

Alley's attorneys said the ruling buttressed their claims that Alley should have access to DNA evidence. They have made their claims in petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court and the state Court of Criminal Appeals. Alley came within eight hours of being put to death last month for the 1985 rape and killing of a young Marine. "Now that the court has recognized that DNA evidence of this type is quite relevant to federal claims, that strengthens our arguments," said Kelley Henry, an assistant federal public defender representing Alley.

The Innocence Project hailed the House decision as having nationwide impact. "This is an important ruling that will profoundly impact people in all 50 states," Peter Neufeld, co-director of the Innocence Project, wrote in a statement. "New scientific evidence can change the entire landscape of a case that resulted in a conviction, and today's ruling makes it clear that people should have an opportunity to seek new trials where juries can hear all the facts," he said



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