Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?

US NewsNovember 2010 • Views: 27,580

In Texas, DNA testing has revealed that the key evidence against a man convicted of murder and put to death by then-Gov. George W. Bush was wrong.

Claude Jones always claimed that he wasn’t the man who walked into an East Texas liquor store in 1989 and shot the owner. He professed his innocence right up until the moment he was strapped to a gurney in the Texas execution chamber and put to death on Dec. 7, 2000. His murder conviction was based on a single piece of forensic evidence recovered from the crime scene—a strand of hair—that prosecutors claimed belonged to Jones.

But DNA tests completed this week at the request of the Observer and the New York-based Innocence Project show the hair didn’t belong to Jones after all. The day before his death in December 2000, Jones asked for a stay of execution so the strand of hair could be submitted for DNA testing. He was denied by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

A decade later, the results of DNA testing not only undermine the evidence that convicted Jones, but raise the possibility that Texas executed an innocent man. The DNA tests—conducted by Mitotyping Technologies, a private lab in State College, Pa., and first reported by the Observer on Thursday—show the hair belonged to the victim of the shooting, Allen Hilzendager, the 44-year-old owner of the liquor store.

Jump to bottom

42 comments

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:01:22am

does the sun rise in the east?

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:01:50am

I believe this would be the first actually proven case of a legally executed man in the US being proven innocent.

There have been a ton of people condemned to death that have had their convictions vacated, and a lot of people who have been executed where there has been shown to be severe doubt afterwards.

But I think this would be the first clear-cut, irrefutable case that an innocent man was executed.

This is not a power that the government should have. It is too final.

SteveMcG Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:01:56am

It’s inevitable that an innocent man will be executed. I have always argues that beyond reasonable doubt is too low a standard for capital punishment.

Four More Tears Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:02:18am

Did Texas Execute an Innocent ~~Man~~ Men?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:03:06am

re: #2 Obdicut

there were others

Varek Raith Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:04:11am

This is the very first reason why I oppose the death penalty.
The second is because I believe death is an easy out for the truly guilty.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:04:50am

re: #5 Dreggas

Ah, thank you. Recent, I hadn’t heard of that one.

Sad, sad shit.

elizajane Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:10:37am

re: #6 Varek Raith

This is the very first reason why I oppose the death penalty.
The second is because I believe death is an easy out for the truly guilty.

Totally agree on both counts.

The monsters in CT who tortured that woman and her little girls before burning down the house deserve to suffer for the rest of their mortal lives, and burn in h*** thereafter.

This man in Texas may have been innocent. Note that the DNA evidence didn’t actually prove that: it only proved that there was not enough evidence to reach a firm guilty verdict. In any event, he should not have been put to death.

Oh, the third reason for being against the death penalty: it disproportionately effects poor minority criminals who don’t get a good enough lawyer. In both cases here the perp was caucasian but I believe that a disproportionate number of death row inmates are minorities: somebody will check me on this, I’m sure!

theheat Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:11:38am

All the more reason DNA testing should be available, and much more quickly, for all cases, whether rape, murder, or what have you. It’s criminal some prisoners have waited year after year for DNA evidence to set them free.

They don’t get their life back. They don’t get all those years and tears back. They be fucked until DNA sets them free.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:13:37am

re: #3 SteveMcG

It’s inevitable that an innocent man will be executed. I have always argues that beyond reasonable doubt is too low a standard for capital punishment.

From a tombstone, legendarily put up by a local vigilante committee:

“Here lies Arkansas Jim,
We made the mistake, but the joke’s on him.”

kingkenrod Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:13:58am

re: #2 Obdicut

I believe this would be the first actually proven case of a legally executed man in the US being proven innocent.

There have been a ton of people condemned to death that have had their convictions vacated, and a lot of people who have been executed where there has been shown to be severe doubt afterwards.

But I think this would be the first clear-cut, irrefutable case that an innocent man was executed.

This is not a power that the government should have. It is too final.

He wasn’t proven innocent. However, he should not have been eligible for the death penalty without the hair evidence.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:16:49am

re: #11 kingkenrod

True: Dreggas’s case is actually better.

RadicalModerate Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:23:25am

re: #4 JasonA

Did Texas Execute an Innocent ~~Man~~ Men?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

The thing about the Cameron Willingham case was that it is very likely that Gov. Rick Perry KNEW that he was innocent of setting the fire when he denied Willingham’s stay - in fact, even the prosecutor on the case had already switched his views. Perry went as far as switching investigators into the case the day before they were to release their findings.
[Link: www.cnn.com…]

Four More Tears Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:24:51am

re: #13 RadicalModerate

Yeah, I’ve read that. It’s a really scary case.

theheat Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:25:24am

re: #13 RadicalModerate

And Rich Perry is a complete douchebag. Still.

theheat Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:25:44am

re: #15 theheat

PIMF, Rick Perry. Mr. Big Hair. Douchebag.

3kids3dogs Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:27:51am

I think a better question might be - “Is there a state that uses the death penalty that hasn’t executed an innocent man?”

Vicious Babushka Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:30:01am

I still think that the guys in Connecticut should be executed.

Our Precious Bodily Fluids Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:30:22am

Why anyone would be against a stay so DNA evidence could be tested is beyond me. The test proves the condemned guilty, then see, the system works. The test proves the condemned not guilty, then see, the system works.

Randy W. Weeks Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:30:39am

I hate the death penalty.

RadicalModerate Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:36:44am

I think that the headline should be slightly changed to “Did Texas Knowingly Execute an Innocent Man?”, as evidence points to the strong possibility that this is the case.

Mentis Fugit Fri, Nov 12, 2010 11:10:28am

It may be cheaper to keep someone in prison for life that to execute them.

Romantic Heretic Fri, Nov 12, 2010 11:50:37am

I’ve always opposed the death penalty for three reasons.

One, there’s no way to reverse it. Death is permanent. Until we can raise the dead we shouldn’t execute people.

Two, it’s not carried out fairly. I recall a study I read in the early nineties that minorities have about three times the number of people sitting on Death Row as in the general population.

Three, capital punishment is most often a political tool, not a judicial one. It’s used to support those in power and not to punish those guilty of a crime. Indeed, I think that point two is a good example of this.

If capital punishment is ever bought back to Canada I will lobby for two things to happen. I will try to make the method of killing a pistol bullet in the back of the head. This is cheap and quick, unlike so may other methods of capital punishment.

I will also make the job of executioner one filled by lottery, with ever person eligible to vote eligible for selection. Any one could get a letter telling them that at this date they must be at this jail where they will kill this person.

You’d be surprised how many supporters of capital punishment don’t support this idea. But it’s a lot easier to kill some one if you don’t have to pull the trigger yourself.

jesdynf Fri, Nov 12, 2010 11:55:39am

I live in Texas. I know the people who voted for Perry. I know specific people who voted for Perry.

And I assure you that they care less about justice, truth, and honor than they do about making sure they stick it to the MOST LIEBRAL PRESIDENT EVER.

sliv_the_eli Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:12:24pm

re: #19 negativ

Why anyone would be against a stay so DNA evidence could be tested is beyond me. The test proves the condemned guilty, then see, the system works. The test proves the condemned not guilty, then see, the system works.

For the same reason, it has always been beyond me why those who support the death penalty would ever have supported limiting the habeas corpus rights of those accused or convicted of capital crimes. Given the finality of the penalty, a person should have every possible opportunity to challenge the conviction and/or penalty, up to and including the moment before the sentence is carried out. If that means that we, as a society, spend more to put someone to death than it would cost to house that person in prison for life, so be it. The extra expense is far outweighed by the risk of executing someone who might actually be innocent.

AntonSirius Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:22:41pm

The death penalty should only be allowed if the presiding judge who hands down the sentence, and everyone above him in the appeals food chain, are willing to be put to death themselves in the event that they conviction gets overturned later.

After all, they will have then been culpable for the death of an innocent person, exactly the sort of crime that supposedly calls for the death penalty. What difference does it make whether you killed them with a gun, or with the callous stroke of a pen?

celticdragon Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:23:27pm

re: #13 RadicalModerate

The thing about the Cameron Willingham case was that it is very likely that Gov. Rick Perry KNEW that he was innocent of setting the fire when he denied Willingham’s stay - in fact, even the prosecutor on the case had already switched his views. Perry went as far as switching investigators into the case the day before they were to release their findings.
[Link: www.cnn.com…]

It says a lot about the polity in Texas that they re-elected a man who abused the authority of government to cover up the excution of an almost certain innocent man. (the faulty forensics that went towards his conviction have been thoroughly debunked and the fire was a genuine accident).

The tea baggers can scream about big government, but they love big government that executes black people and white trash while the governor talks smack about nullification and seccession.

3kids3dogs Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:27:29pm

re: #23 Romantic Heretic

Two, it’s not carried out fairly. I recall a study I read in the early nineties that minorities have about three times the number of people sitting on Death Row as in the general population.

I believe I read a study that concluded that the race of the victim was more influential than the race of the perp as to whether or not the death penalty was imposed.

steve_davis Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:33:34pm

re: #5 Dreggas

there were others

England put a number of widows to death in the nineteenth-century for arsenic poisoning of their husbands, with key evidence being arsenic found in fire grates. Someone finally brought an expert witness up who pointed out that arsenic is a by-product of burning coal, so of course there was arsenic residue in coal-burning grates in homes. I can’t remember how many women were executed on this evidence, but it was enough to where some legal scholar commented on it many years later.

HappyWarrior Fri, Nov 12, 2010 1:44:30pm

I’m strongly anti death penalty and this case is why. I don’t get it honestly. Some of the people who talk loudest about government control are some of the staunchest supporters of the DP I’ve ever met. You would think that by their logic, the last thing they’d want the government controlling is life and death. This is just a tragedy. Get rid of the death penalty honestly. Yes, there are a lot of bad people out there but it is an injustice to us all if one innocent is executed.

Nemesis6 Fri, Nov 12, 2010 2:31:56pm

I keep revising this response, but I’ll just condense it: Death penalty = murder, no matter what. Doesn’t matter if they’re criminals or not.

Wozza Matter? Fri, Nov 12, 2010 3:07:12pm

Short answer - through history? - almost definitely yes.

Steve Dutch Fri, Nov 12, 2010 7:31:03pm

re: #26 AntonSirius

The death penalty should only be allowed if the presiding judge who hands down the sentence, and everyone above him in the appeals food chain, are willing to be put to death themselves in the event that they conviction gets overturned later.
After all, they will have then been culpable for the death of an innocent person, exactly the sort of crime that supposedly calls for the death penalty. What difference does it make whether you killed them with a gun, or with the callous stroke of a pen?

I agree. I think it is impossible to have a wrongful conviction without judicial, prosecutorial or police misconduct, and every such case should be considered a Federal crime. But—-

Well, in my area the Never-Ending Story is about a guy named Stephen Avery who spent eighteen years in prison for rape before being freed through the efforts of Project Innocence. Shortly afterward he murdered a woman reporter.

So should the Project Innocence folks die? (Actually in my state they’d go to prison for life). After all, they are “culpable for the death of an innocent person.” I’d go for AntonSirius’ plan if it cut both ways: if every time a criminal released through the efforts of the ACLU or Project Innocence killed someone, the people who sprung him were executed, too.

So the case is now going through yet another round of appeals. And as far as I can tell, and I’ve been paying attention, not a single appeal has been based on evidence that Avery was actually innocent of the murder. It’s all been procedural, or alternative scenarios that make Birther conspiracy theories look like rigorous science. (By the way, maybe we should re-evaluate whether or not he really was innocent of the crime that sent him to prison).

So, you’re telling me the cops found one lousy hair that led them to Claude Jones? They just hauled in people until they got someone with the right hair? I kinda suspect you’re omitting details, maybe significant ones.

And as far as resources to test DNA, wouldn’t there be far more resources if we limited appeals to issues of factual guilt or innocence? Wouldn’t there be less opposition to habeas corpus suits if they were strictly limited to factual guilt or innocence rather than unrelated procedural matters?

zoidberg Sat, Nov 13, 2010 3:23:02am

This is why all civilised countries should abolish this barbaric practice. True murderers should be locked up for a long time or for good - it’s the price of justice; death is too easy for them.

redbird250 Sat, Nov 13, 2010 8:23:35am

True murderers should be locked up for a long time or for good - it’s the price of justice; death is too easy for them.re: #34 zoidberg

In some cases, it is both. Tookie was executed 25 years after his crime.

Ming Sat, Nov 13, 2010 1:27:01pm

Perhaps what’s most disturbing about the possible execution of an innocent man in Texas is that George W. Bush doesn’t give a damn, and is proud of the fact that he doesn’t give a damn.

Dan M. Sat, Nov 13, 2010 4:06:10pm

He wasn’t “proven innocent” nor was he “put to death by” George W. Bush.

Jones and 2 accomplices robbed a liquor store. Jones or Dixon shot the owner, and eyewitnesses couldn’t identify which one it was. The third man claimed that Jones was the shooter, then prosecutors cooked up some forensic evidence to allow them to use the testimony for a conviction. The 3rd man was coerced into saying that Jones, not Dixon, was the shooter. All three could have probably been convicted of felony murder and it’s never been determined which of the two men was the shooter.

And pinning this on Bush when:

“Documents show that attorneys in the governor’s office failed to inform Bush that DNA evidence might exonerate Jones. Bush, a proponent of DNA testing in death penalty cases, had previously halted another execution so that key DNA evidence could be examined. Without knowing that Jones wanted DNA testing, Bush let the execution go forward.”

Oh, and even the co-founder of the Innocence Project says “I’m convinced that [Bush] would have granted this reprieve had he known about it. I find it just astonishing that he wasn’t told. That’s a pretty serious breakdown in the criminal justice system.”

Yes, the death penalty can be a bad thing. But this doesn’t prove what you think it proves. The strand of hair was never presented as definitive evidence. It was just cooked up so they could use the accomplice testimony. The scientist even said that they couldn’t definitively determine whose hair it was. This is an issue of corrupt prosecutors and police officers, not about bad science or even the death penalty. And this is not an innocent man.

Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 13, 2010 6:49:12pm

re: #37 Dan M.

My post doesn’t say he was “proven innocent.” It says that the most damning evidence against him was proven wrong.

That’s a fact.

As for who’s ultimately responsible, last time I checked, the death penalty buck stops at the Governor’s office.

Was Jones innocent? Well, the point is rather moot now, isn’t it?

Pythagoras Sat, Nov 13, 2010 8:39:46pm

re: #38 Charles

Was Jones innocent? Well, the point is rather moot now, isn’t it?

I think the issue of whether Texas executed an innocent man is of critical importance.

Pythagoras Sat, Nov 13, 2010 8:52:41pm

The guy who testified against Jones recanted here:

[Link: www.texasobserver.org…]

ajaxlikid Sun, Nov 14, 2010 3:14:28am

Charles,
I think your summary could have used this paragraph from the article:

Documents show that attorneys in the governor’s office failed to inform Bush that DNA evidence might exonerate Jones. Bush, a proponent of DNA testing in death penalty cases, had previously halted another execution so that key DNA evidence could be examined. Without knowing that Jones wanted DNA testing, Bush let the execution go forward.

Don’t you think?

Dan M. Sun, Nov 14, 2010 2:15:41pm

re: #38 Charles

My post doesn’t say he was “proven innocent.” It says that the most damning evidence against him was proven wrong.

That’s a fact.

As for who’s ultimately responsible, last time I checked, the death penalty buck stops at the Governor’s office.

Was Jones innocent? Well, the point is rather moot now, isn’t it?

No, you weren’t the one who said he was proven innocent, and you weren’t the one I was quoting or responding to on that point.

Does the governor approve the conviction or pass the sentence? No. The governor has the power to grant clemency or a stay after a jury has returned a guilty verdict and after a judge has handed down a death sentence. That the governor does not exercise this power does make him the one who “puts to death” any inmate. The president also has the power to pardon. Is every man not pardoned or given a commuted sentence by the president “put to death” by the president? George W. Bush is particularly released from culpability in this case when he had information withheld from him by government attorneys.

Also, the hair sample wasn’t the “most damning” evidence against him. So that not “a fact.” He was convicted on the basis of the testimony and the hair sample was offered up as admittedly very weak corroborating evidence so they could use the testimony. The testimony itself was recanted 4 years after Jones’ death.

Robertson compared the hair with samples taken from 15 people who entered the store the day of the murder. He testified at trial that he believed the hair matched Jones. But he conceded, “Technology has not advanced where we can tell you that this hair came from that person,” he told the jury, according to court records. “Can’t be done.”

They apparently didn’t even check to see if the hair matched the store owner! It didn’t take a DNA test to discredit the forensic evidence, it simply needed competent scientists that worked to test evidence, not lackeys that worked to validate prosecutorial hypotheses.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud