Justice, Texas Style
In 1980, Delma Banks, Jr. was sentenced to die by whatever method we were using in the Lone Star State at that time. He's still sitting on death row. Nothing unusual there, you say; it's Texas. Those folks are fond of capital punishment and death row inmates typically spend many years sitting, before execution is carried out.
Earlier this month, the High Court heard arguments from Mr. Banks' attorney and the attorney representing the state. At issue was witness testimony that was admitted during Banks' trial; testimony that allegedly was offered despite the fact that prosecutors knew of its untruthfulness. The Supremes' decision is expected next summer, but the facts of this appeal warrant the immediate asking of a critical question: why would a prosecutor knowingly solicit, and present, false testimony?
To win. That's the short answer. Most district attorney offices in Texas place a high premium on winning trials -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing, if the defendant is actually guilty. It's an ethical thing, really. And right in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure we find the prosecutor's guiding light:
It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused...
Wise, if beautiful, words to live by in the land of prosecution. But naturally, prosecutors want convictions; it's good to hold wrongdoers accountable for their wrong actions. And community pressure warrants the someone pay a price for violating the laws of society. Ideally, however, that someone is the actual perpetrator.
Unfortunately, it seems as though justice and integrity have taken a back seat to victory and perhaps political success. And this isn't an overnight development; it's almost been a right-of-passage to the kingdom of prosecutor nonpareil, for as long as mankind has been in existence. Great boost for the self-esteem, too; not so great for the criminal justice system.
Banks was convicted for shooting a sixteen year old, his co-worker, then taking the teen's vehicle. A horrific crime by any standard. Of nearly equal repugnance, in an entirely different arena, is the fact that there was no physical evidence presented during trial. The conviction was based completely on witness testimony; testimony that essentially amounted to Banks being the last person to see the victim. Compelling evidence, to be sure, but not something that fairly mandates the most permanent of punishments.
Latest Articles