Good Thing He Was Guilty

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." --J. R. R. Tolkien

Virginia Governor Mark Warner(D) last week received results of DNA testing in a capital murder case in an effort to either confirm or deny the guilt of convicted murderer, Robert Keith Coleman.

What is singularly compelling in this particular case, is that Robert Keith Coleman has been dead for over 13 years. He was duly executed, according to Virginia State law, in 1992.

There has been speculation in the media and in the blogosphere, as to what his motivation might be for ordering DNA testing to be done now, when it is so obviously too late. If testing concluded that Virginia executed the wrong man, he is still dead.

A lot of people have made the point that ordering DNA testing on a long since executed prisoner is a political move. But to what political end? I haven't really given the matter a lot of thought.

I have been busy the last two days creating a new and separate blog for the purpose of setting down in text, an old tape recorded message I had listened to so much, that I have it pretty well memorized over the years. I lost my copy of the tape when I moved to Maryland, so I wanted to get what I remember of it down before my memory fails me further. But I digress.

I am going to think this thing out as I type. Here is how my thought processes work:

Warner is a Democrat. I know nothing more about him other than he is considered, according to Wikipedia, almost a clone of Bill Clinton, politically.

Let's hope he isn't a clone of Clinton, morally. Dang! I digress again.

Ok. Where was I? Oh. As I mentioned, Warner is a Democrat, which leads me to think that he is likely against the death penalty, but that isn't set in stone. So, the case can be made that testing the DNA of someone who has already been executed, for an anti-death penalty Governor would seem to indicate that he was attempting to make some sort of point. It strikes me, that if he is indeed an opponent of the death penalty, he is taking a big chance in testing if he is seeking to posthumously exonerate the man.

I have personally been actively involved in jury trials, once as a jurist, and once as (I blush to say) a defendant, and I have come to the conclusion, based on those experiences, that jury's seldom make mistakes. You see? When someone is called to jury duty, and is approved to sit on said jury, they tend, for the most part, to take their duty very seriously, and to do their very best to render a fair and impartial verdict. In addition, it is very hard to secure a guilty verdict against anyone since the criteria for rendering that verdict is so narrow.

Hence, someone who is found guilty is found guilty with out a doubt. This is not to say mistakes are never made. I am quite sure that on occasion, some one has no doubt gone to jail, or been executed wrongfully. The odds are simply too high in favor of that conclusion.

Getting back to my point, (Boy! I bet I must have been fun in bars when I used to drink, eh?) If Mark Warner wanted to find proof that Coleman was innocent after all these years, it may have been so he could run for higher office on the basis, partly, that he has found proof that sometimes innocent men get executed, thus smugly shoring up what could be a contentious plank in his platform. I say "smugly" because if he discovered what he was hoping to discover, he would probably wear that triumph like a badge of honor. I know I would.

If that was Warner's goal, he must have been somewhat disappointed when the test came back proving conclusively that he was, as the jury concluded, guilty of the murder for which he was executed.

On the other hand, if he called for the testing in order to validate the findings of the court, it might have been to possibly silence his critics, again, in preparation for a run at a higher office. That same Wikipedia article indicated he hasn't shied away from denying clemency appeals in the past. Warner has denied clemency in 11 other cases that have come before him as governor.

Two more points, then I'll go away.

Wikipedia says, "On November 29, 2005, as is his prerogative as governor, Warner commuted the death sentence of Robin Lovitt to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Lovitt was convicted of murdering Clayton Dicks at an Arlington pool hall in 1999. After his trial in 2001, a court clerk illegally destroyed evidence that was used against Lovitt during his trial, but that could have exonerated him upon further DNA testing. A few weeks earlier, Virginia implemented a law requiring the preservation of DNA evidence in death row cases."

I think maybe, illegally destroying evidence that could be used to overturn a conviction may have something to do with Warner's decision to order the tests.

Lastly, It just occurred to me that the jury members that participated in Coleman's trial might also be breathing a sigh of relief at the news that they didn't send an innocent man to the chair after all. Can you imagine how guilty they would have felt had the test showed him to be innocent?

Wow! That brings up another thought! A much more harrowing thought. If this practice of testing DNA years after the execution becomes very common, it strikes me that it is possible that some jury members, somewhere down the road, could feel very very guilty upon finding out the man they convicted was innocent! What would the repercussions of that revelation bring? It is possible that some poor innocent jury member might be so overwhelmed with guilt over that scenario, they could conceivably do themselves in, or at least, end up in years of counseling.

I wonder if Governor Warner considered that possibility.