Dallas Morning News: 2 men wrongly convicted in 1997 Dallas murder to be exonerated

[Heidi]

02:54 PM CDT on Wednesday, October 21, 2009

A confession by a man already in prison for another crime will lead to the exoneration of two men wrongly convicted for a 1997 capital murder, the Dallas County district attorney's office said today.

Claude Alvin Simmons, Jr., 54, and Christopher Shun Scott, 39, who are both serving life sentences for the April 7, 1997, shooting death of Alfonso Aguilar, will both be released after convicted robber Alonzo Hardy gave authorities a detailed confession implicating himself and another man in the murder.

Hardy, 39, has been in prison since 1999, serving a 30-year sentence for a robbery committed a year after the Aguilar slaying.

Aguilar, 41, was fatally shot in the chest during a home-invasion robbery in the 4600 block of Hopkins Avenue. A female relative was also sexually assaulted during the incident, authorities had said. A Dallas County jury convicted Simmons after just six minutes of deliberations.

Dallas police Tuesday night arrested Don Michael Anderson, 40, in Houston for his role in the killing. According to the district attorney's office, Hardy's confession implicated Anderson and cleared both Simmons and Scott of any involvement in the crime.

<snip>

Dallas County leads the nation in DNA exonerations with 20. Authorities say that Hardy's confession was corroborated by physical evidence gathered at the crime scene. Officials said Hardy also passed a polygraph examination, as did Simmons and Scott, who testifed at their own back-to-back trials in 1997 and have steadfastly maintained their innocence.

Read more

[TexasObserver]

1. "A Dallas County jury convicted Simmons after just six minutes of deliberations."

Most defendants in major cases don't have a snow ball's chance in hell.

[MajorChode]

2. I was on a jury under similar circumstances

As soon as we went to the deliberations room everyone wanted to just vote the guy guilty and go home. We had been listening to the trial for most of the week and it was Friday. Most of the evidence pointed to the man's guilt, but I figured that since he opted for a trial instead of a plea bargain there must be something more to the story. All I wanted to do was go over all the evidence piece by piece as there were a couple of things that didn't sound right to me. I suspected someone else might have similar concerns. It pissed a couple of people off because I was the lone holdout for a while. I just can't see sending someone to jail for possibly the rest of their life without even talking about it, simply because you don't want to be there.

[Heidi]

5. "...just six minutes of deliverations."

Shameful.

[TexasObserver]

7. They could not have read the judge's instructions in six minutes.

That jury committed misconduct. A jury is supposed to DELIBERATE. You can't deliberate in less time than it takes to drink a cup of coffee.

A jury is supposed to read the judge's instuctions, out loud, so the whole jury hears it. Then they elect a foreperson. Then the foreperson is supposed to use the judge's charge as their instruction manual and follow it to the letter.

Too often, jurors want to get it over with, beat the traffic and get home. If you want to know what most juries are like, go to Walmart and count any 12 people. There's your jury. There's your life and death decision makers. Juries can do a decent job, but they can be wrong, wrong, wrong, and often are. If you pick 12 adults at random, every 20 or 30 times, you're going to get a jury populated with teabaggers or others who are off balance or not quite up to the job. You're going to get some exceptionally stupid juries who can't possibly decide anything complex.

Any jury that only deliberates six minutes did not do its job.

[change_notfinetuning]

3. Save a life and you save the world, or the American way - execute anyone,

so long as they are convicted, even if they are innocent.

What civilized people wouldn't pay for new DNA testing, that wasn't previously available, to see if the person convicted, and on Death Row, is innocent. This should be done upon request, instead of requiring them to jump through the hoops of getting some well-meaning attorney or college innocence project to step in. I don't care how much it would cost.

When courts order the execution of an innocent person, which has happened way too often, it is done in our name and we are all guilty of murder. It is murder, without question, and we need to recognize that and admit it. It doesn't get much more unconscionable than that.

Of course, even those not on Death Row should be able to get this test, as long as the crime is one where DNA testing can determine innocence. Incarcerating people for decades, whose innocence could be proven with a simple test, is one of the most shameful indictments of our country's self-proclaimed moral high ground. If exonerated, they should be fairly compensated for the BS they endured. I can't imagine being subjected to the horrors in prison, for all those years, knowing that I was innocent. Can you?

Let me add that I am not opposed to the death penalty. If someone is caught in the act of committing murder, with no extenuating circumstances and no doubt of guilt, the death penalty should be considered. Particularly in heinous circumstances. Sorry, but some people, in my opinion don't deserve to live. But we have to stop being so quick to execute, especially when prosecutors are, too often, more concerned with getting a conviction than having the jury hear the truth. And we must see that justice prevails in every case in a timely manner.

[maglatinavi]

4. life

:thumbsdown: the death penalty is murder to prevent murder...:thumbsdown:

[Heidi]

6. A belated welcome to DU, maglatinavi!

:hi: