| Return To Anthony Graves' Main Page |
Debate over the use of snitch testimony in a Texas death penalty case
JACKI LYDEN, host:
From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Jacki Lyden.
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:
And I'm Robert Siegel.
In Texas, a criminal case
has many people questioning the use of what is
called 'snitch testimony.'
Snitch testimony is when someone in jail
testifies against a defendant
after making a deal with prosecutors. The
case in question is from
1994. That's when Anthony Graves was convicted
or murder after another
man named Graves as his accomplice. The man who
named him was in prison
at the time. He was the jailhouse informant, or
the snitch, but the snitch
has since recanted. Graves remains on death
row. From Austin, Texas,
Janet Heimlich reports.
JANET HEIMLICH reporting:
It was a horrific crime
that took place in the small town of Somerville,
95 miles east of Austin.
On August 18th, 1992, a family of 6, including
four children, were shot,
stabbed and bludgeoned to death. The bodies
were then set on fire
to cover up the crime. Police first picked up
Robert Carter. He was
the father of one of the victims and had burns on
him. Carter confessed
and named his wife's cousin, Anthony Graves, as his
accomplice. When police
arrested Graves, he denied having anything to do
with the murders. He
says he couldn't believe that Carter had accused him
of such a crime.
Mr. ANTHONY GRAVES (Accused
Murder Accomplice): I kind of laughed because
I'm I'm thinking this
is just a big misunderstanding. I said, 'You don't
know me.'
HEIMLICH: It was not a
laughing matter. Graves was charged with capital
murder.
In February of 1994, Carter
was sentenced to death for the crimes, then
Graves was tried in the
fall of that year. Charles Sebesta was the
district attorney who
prosecuted Graves. Sebesta says he presented
circumstantial evidence,
but that's not what convinced the jury to find
Graves guilty and sentence
him to death.
Mr. CHARLES SEBESTA (District
Attorney): I think the most significant
aspect of that trial
was Robert Earl Carter's testimony at trial.
HEIMLICH: Carter was Sebesta's
key witness. After taking the stand,
Carter said he killed
one of the victims and Graves killed the rest.
Ms. VICKIE HANSEN (Jury
Member): That was, you know, the biggest factor
for me, his testimony,
Carter's testimony.
HEIMLICH: Vickie Hansen sat on the jury.
Ms. HANSEN: He was just
really convincing. You know, he just said that he
felt that he had to do
this because, you know, he was involved in the
killing of his own son
and he just wanted to make things right.
HEIMLICH: But Hansen says
she doesn't remember an important piece of
information prosecutors
shared with the jury. They had made a deal with
Carter. In exchange for
his testimony against Graves, prosecutors agreed
not to ask Carter questions
about his wife's possible involvement.
Carter is what many in
the legal profession call a snitch, someone who's
in trouble with the law
and makes a deal with prosecutors in exchange for
testifying against a
defendant. Rob Warden is the executive director of
the Center on Wrongful
Convictions at Chicago's Northwestern University
School of Law. Warden
says snitch testimony is highly unreliable and
should be banned from
the courtroom.
Mr. ROB WARDEN (Center
on Wrongful Convictions, Chicago's Northwestern
University School of
Law): No media outlet in this country, for all of
the faults of the media,
would ever publish a story or air a story based
on the kind of information
that snitches use with impunity in the
courtroom. And yet, our
government is using this sort of unfounded
information to send people
to the execution chamber.
HEIMLICH: The Center on
Wrongful Convictions recently finished a study
that shows that in the
more than 100 cases where death row inmates had
been exonerated, nearly
40 percent involved snitch testimony.
When the Illinois General
Assembly meets in November, it is expected to
take up a bill that aims
to reduce snitch testimony in death penalty
cases. The bill would
require judges to hold pretrial hearings to verify
the credibility of snitches
before they testify.
Mr. ROB KEPPLE (Texas
District and County Attorneys Association): That's
not a good idea.
HEIMLICH: Rob Kepple is
general counsel for the Texas District and County
Attorneys Association.
Kepple says prosecutors should not be limited to
how they use snitches.
He points out that by law, juries must be told of
any deals. Kepple says
snitch testimony is often necessary to convict
criminals.
Mr. KEPPLE: As a prosecutor,
I'll take my evidence wherever I can get it.
And if someone calls
me from the jail and says, 'Hey, my roommate just
told me that he really
did rape this woman and that he was going to
pretend to be insane
to try to get out if it'--which, by the way, is a
real case--you bet I'm
going to use that witness if I can verify that and
let the jury judge that
credibility.
HEIMLICH: In the Graves
case, the snitch's testimony is being questioned.
A couple years after
the trial, Carter began telling other death row
inmates he had lied on
the witness stand. He said Graves had had nothing
to do with the murders,
and had accused him to prevent prosecutors from
charging Carter's wife
as an accomplice. One of the 1st people to hear
Carter's recantations
was Kerry Cook. Cook was in prison with Carter and
Graves before he was
exonerated. Cook says he 1st talked to Graves and
heard his story. Then
he asked Carter did he really frame Graves for a
crime he didn't do.
Mr. KERRY COOK: And he
said, 'Yes.' And it took me, you know, a few
seconds to recuperate
from that shock, because this man--everything
Anthony Graves had been
telling me was, in fact, true.
HEIMLICH: Carter signed
affidavits, appeared in videotapes and gave
depositions trying to
clear Graves' name. Before he was executed in 2000,
Carter said in his final
statement, 'It was me and me alone. Anthony
Graves had nothing to
do with it. I lied on him in court.'
Juror Vickie Hansen says
during the trial, she felt 100 % sure Graves was
guilty. Now after hearing
about Carter's recantations, she wonders
whether the jury did
the right thing.
Ms. HANSEN: I mean, I'd
hate to see that we--you know, that we did make a
mistake that big.
HEIMLICH: Yet prosecutor
Charles Sebesta has fought Graves' efforts to
get a new trial. He says
he doesn't believe the recantations. Sebesta
says while he can't prove
it, he thinks Carter's wife, Cookie, was a
third accomplice, and
Carter was trying to prevent her from ever being
prosecuted.
Mr. SEBESTA: Carter was
afraid that after he was executed that Graves
would come back in and
say, 'I'll make a deal with you. You commute me to
life, I'll give you Cookie.'
HEIMLICH: But Graves,
who continues to proclaim his innocence, accuses
Sebesta of putting politics
above justice.
Mr. GRAVES: It's all about
a conviction. And that's what, basically, the
system has boiled down
to: going into the court and winning at all costs,
regardless. It's not
about innocence anymore.
HEIMLICH: Graves' efforts
to appeal his case have not been successful.
The Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals discounted Carter's recantations,
saying one of his statements
conflicts with other evidence presented at
trial. The case is now
in federal court. For NPR News, I'm Janet Heimlich
in Austin.
(source: National Public
Radio, Sept. 4)
| Return To Anthony Graves' Main Page |
