Skinner v. Switzer
Encyclopedia
Skinner v. Switzer is a legal dispute that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court
. The case concerns the route by which a prisoner may obtain biological DNA
material for testing, to challenge his conviction; whether through a civil rights suit or a habeas corpus petition. Oral arguments were heard on October 13, 2010.
in Texas courts. It was subsequently dismissed as untimely and the CCA affirmed. In 1999, he filed a federal habeas petition. At the same time, he began pushing for DNA testing of materials in the original case by the District Attorney's office. The testing was conducted by a private office and resulted in mixed results; however Skinner wanted what he called 'independent' testing. He filed claims in Texas court for his own DNA testing but his attempts did not succeed. He filed a second successive federal habeas petition demanding DNA testing of all evidence; this was an independent claim as well as a basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (his attorney did not request DNA testing of certain evidence at trial). A federal magistrate held a hearing, rejected the petition, which a district judge eventually confirmed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court entered a stay of execution and granted a writ of certiorari
to hear the case.
After Owen concluded, Gregory S. Coleman, arguing for District Attorney Lynn Switzer, opened by stating that Skinner's case was just a Brady claim
about access to material. Justice Breyer then moved the focus to the question of a substantive civil right: "what Skinner wants is the DNA. He thinks it's going to be exculpatory. He doesn't know until he gets it." Coleman still challenged whether this is the proper subject of a habeas corpus claim. Justices further questioned where the distinction between the two types of claims (civil rights violations and habeas) lay. Hypotheticals to test this distinction drew criticism from Justice Kennedy. Coleman then concluded by arguing that the only way Skinner could make a claim is to argue the DNA testing law of Texas is "unconstitutional" not a habeas claim.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
. The case concerns the route by which a prisoner may obtain biological DNA
DNA
Deoxyribonucleic acid is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms . The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in...
material for testing, to challenge his conviction; whether through a civil rights suit or a habeas corpus petition. Oral arguments were heard on October 13, 2010.
History of the case
Skinner was convicted of murdering his girlfriend in 1995, and sentenced to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) affirmed. On March 26, 1998, Skinner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpusHabeas corpus
is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations...
in Texas courts. It was subsequently dismissed as untimely and the CCA affirmed. In 1999, he filed a federal habeas petition. At the same time, he began pushing for DNA testing of materials in the original case by the District Attorney's office. The testing was conducted by a private office and resulted in mixed results; however Skinner wanted what he called 'independent' testing. He filed claims in Texas court for his own DNA testing but his attempts did not succeed. He filed a second successive federal habeas petition demanding DNA testing of all evidence; this was an independent claim as well as a basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (his attorney did not request DNA testing of certain evidence at trial). A federal magistrate held a hearing, rejected the petition, which a district judge eventually confirmed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court entered a stay of execution and granted a writ of certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
to hear the case.
Oral Arguments
The Court heard oral arguments on October 13, 2010. The Court focused the questioning on the boundary between habeas claims and §1983 claims (violations of civil rights). Robert C. Owen, attorney for Skinner, started by narrowing the scope of their appeal to seeking "only access to evidence for DNA testing". Justice Alito was skeptical of the path Skinner was using in order to get the DNA testing. He stated that it was just a backdoor attempt "in overturning [a prisoner's] conviction". Owen then turned to practical considerations of the case, emphasizing that there would be no flood of §1983 cases. He relied on evidence from multiple Courts of Appeal to demonstrate that no such rush would occur. As Owen concluded, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Steven Breyer attacked Skinner's original complaint.After Owen concluded, Gregory S. Coleman, arguing for District Attorney Lynn Switzer, opened by stating that Skinner's case was just a Brady claim
Brady v. Maryland
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United...
about access to material. Justice Breyer then moved the focus to the question of a substantive civil right: "what Skinner wants is the DNA. He thinks it's going to be exculpatory. He doesn't know until he gets it." Coleman still challenged whether this is the proper subject of a habeas corpus claim. Justices further questioned where the distinction between the two types of claims (civil rights violations and habeas) lay. Hypotheticals to test this distinction drew criticism from Justice Kennedy. Coleman then concluded by arguing that the only way Skinner could make a claim is to argue the DNA testing law of Texas is "unconstitutional" not a habeas claim.