CrimLaw

Death - Texas:

Delma Banks Jr.

In Federal Supreme Court

Among others here are the more significant arguments:

Banks' lawyers demonstrated to the Texarkana court that the prosecution had withheld from the defense and the jury the fact that its main witness, who gave damaging evidence at the sentencing hearing, was a paid police informant.

Another main prosecution witness lied when he said that he had spoken to no one in advance about his courtroom testimony. That lie was uncovered only in 1999, when Banks' defense team obtained a transcript of the witness's pretrial interview with law enforcement officials, in which he was coached and rehearsed in what to say.

The attorney for Texas replied:

Gena Bunn, an assistant Texas attorney general, told the court on Monday that state prosecutors probably knew their star witness lied on the stand during Delma Banks' capital murder trial. And they weren't particularly forthcoming about the extent of the falsehoods during Banks' appeals, she said.

But none of that is reason to overrule the appeals court that upheld Banks' conviction and sentence, Bunn said, because Banks' first lawyer was too slow to complain about the deceptions, and jurors at his trial probably would have convicted him anyway.

Banks' current attorney said the prosecutors' misconduct and Banks' first lawyer's incompetence cry out for a rehearing.
. . .
Bunn told the justices that state prosecutors didn't have an obligation to point out that one of the witnesses lied when he told the court he wasn't a paid informant. She said the lie didn't matter because the witness was paid to help police find the gun, not for his testimony.

What matters, she said, was that Banks' lawyers missed deadlines for appeals while they searched for evidence and tried to find the witnesses, who had left Texas. Because of their tardiness, Bunn argued, the prosecutors couldn't be blamed for the problems.

Point 1: No obligation to tell the court that your witness is lying? That's called a fraud on the court and you are not allowed to perpetrate one.

Point 2: Arguing procedure to save your hide when you really screwed up is not appropriate. It may work but it is a stain on the system every time form is favored over actual justice.

The Houston Chronicle described this argument as follows:

The Supreme Court today will be asked to rein in what defense attorneys, and some prosecutors, contend is a rogue appeals court that ignores the justices' rulings in order to rubber stamp Texas death sentences.