•

CAUSE NUMBER 1170853

THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 177TH DISTRICT COURT

v. OF

JOHN GREEN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

STATE'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

COMES NOW, THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through her undersigned Assistant District
Attorneys and respectfully requests this Honorable Court to reconsider the ruling granting the
defendant's motion titled Motion to Hold that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.0[711 is
Unconstitutional. The State respectfully suggests that the ruling does not conform to the law and was
predicated on inaccurate information. In support thereof, the State would show that the defendant
cited United States v. Quinones, 205 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), which declared the death penalty
nd
unconstitutional. On December 10, 2002, the 2 Circuit Court of Appeals, in United States v. Quinones,
313 F2d 49 (2 nd Cir. 2002) reversed that decision.

Additionally, his honor took "judicial notice" that "more than 200 inmates from the country's
death rows have been exonerated." Respectfully, the State would argue that number is inaccurate. The
Death Penalty Information Center website lists 139 exonerations. However, that includes cases that
were reversed for some reason and the cases were not retried for any number of reasons. The number
. .'-
also includes cases that were overturned and retried and a not guilty verdict was returned, which does
not always mean actual innocence, it just means that the State did not meet the burden of proof.
Therefore, the 139 number is not a number of cases where the defendant was found to be actually
innocent. There have been reviews done of the individual cases that show less than 30 of these cases
were true exonerations. Further, the Innocence Project lists approximately 240 exonerations. However,
that is a \1st of defendants where DNA testing led to their release and it includes defendants not under a
death sentence. Approximately ten of those 240 were on death row.

Further, as Justice Scalia wrote In a concurring opinion In Kansas v. Marsh 548 US 163
(2006): "It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case-not one-
In which It Is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event
had occurred In recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the Innocent's name would be
shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby. The dissent makes much of the new-found
capacity of DNA testing to establish Innocence. But In every case of an executed defendant of
which I am aware, that technology has confirmed guilt." This opinion also discussed the
thorough review that all death penalty cases receive to Insure that an Innocent person is not
executed.
.

Therefore, respectfully, the STATE requests that this Honorable Court reconsider and
deny the Defendant's Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

William Exley
Assistant District Attorney

C.M. Allen
Assistant District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Motion was hand delivered to counsel
for the defense, this the 5th day of March, 2010.

C.M. Allen
Assistant District Attorney

ORDER

The State's Motion to Reconsider is GRANTED I DENIED.

It Is so ORDERED, this the 5th day of March, 2010.

Judge Kevin Fine

177th District Court
Harris County t Texas