| Summary |
"About the case of Lionel Herrera, who was executed in 1994 after a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected considering his compelling evidence of innocence obtained after his trial, because he was unable to establish that his trial was constitutionally defective -- and thus he had not been denied due process of law. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that since the fact of Herrera's possible innocence was irrelevant to determining if he hadn't been accorded due process -- the Court wouldn't intervene in the State of Texas carrying out his death sentence. Justice Blackmun valiantly rallied against the virtual lawlessness the Court’s majority was endorsing when he wrote in dissent: “Of one thing, however, I am certain. Just as an execution without adequate safeguards is unacceptable, so too is an execution when the condemned prisoner can prove that he is innocent. The execution of a person who can show that he is innocent comes perilously close to simple murder.” (Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 113 S. Ct. 853 (U.S. 01-25-1993))" |