Judge Signals Intent to Rule Against Condemned Inmate
A judge in Montgomery County plans to recommend that the state move forward with the execution of Larry Swearingen, a death row inmate who argues that science proves he is innocent of the 1998 murder for which he was condemned to die.
Bill Delmore, assistant district attorney in Montgomery County, said Wednesday that state district Judge Fred Edwards told lawyers in an in-chambers meeting that he intends to rule in favor of the state, which disputes Swearingen’s claims of innocence. Edwards asked the district attorney’s office to prepare recommendations that will be sent to the Texas Court of ...
Comments (9)
Luisa Inez Newton via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Are all Texas judges trying to be Robespierre? Surely, Molly Ivins pleads, not!
Debbie Spencer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Hopefully the evidence will be carefully considered with finding the truth the goal.
Robert Ruiz via Texas Tribune on Facebook
texas red---domain of the compassionate conservative christian always at the ready for the collective kill. ironically, what was done to the christ.
Timothy Gännaway via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Why didn't your story mention the part where Mr. Swearingen told a friend to lie to police and say he was with them? Or the part where Mr. Swearingen sent an anonymous letter in Spanish (or at least an attempt at Spanish) to police to convince them they should search for a Mexican suspect? Or the part where shredded class schedules and insurance documents of the 19-year old victim were found in Mr. Swearingen's garbage? There was a ton of other evidence that was used to convict this man.
Carol Goodwin
Unless there is positive proof that Swearingen committed this crime, I do not see how he can be put to death for said crime. Are we ready to kill an innocent man? All I see is proof that he did not commit the crime! Why is the court so determined to become the murderer?
Phillip Baker
The words of that ADA Delmore should strike fear into the hearts of all people who believe in rule of law. In our system, the state has the burden to prove a man guilty. Delmore is satisfied that this woman "could have been" killed the day she disappeared and that nothing proves that Swearingen " could not have killed " the victim. In the face of true expert testimony for the defense (especially that the body, supposedly laying in those woods for 2 weeks, yet not decomposed, no leaves had fallen on it, no animal bites,etc), all the rest- the letter, the supposed lie from a friend, the class schedule- do NOT prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. THAT is the standard here, not " no proof he could not have done the crime". Another example of a prosecutor going for notches of convictions rather than justice. How long will people put up with this corruption?
Anya Khan
Debbie, thank you for your post.
Texas Tribune via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Timothy, click on the link to the previous story, which discusses all of the evidence in detail.
Debbie Zimm
I get the distict feeling that Judges and courts and judicial proceedings and hearings are more important now than the science and the truth. I'm not an ME, however it seems science can tell us very closely how long this girl was dead. I also get the distict feeling that if science proved she was dead for less than three weeks, there are people who would go to any length to cover up this fact. Creepy.