The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals finally did what local officials refused to do — give a condemned inmate the time she needs to address legitimate questions about her guilt, the charges against her, and the trial in which her execution was ordered.
The court on Monday stayed Wednesday’s scheduled execution of Melissa Lucio, a Harlingen mother who was convicted in 2008 of murdering her 2-year-old daughter Mariah. The case was remanded to the 138th state District Court in Cameron County, where she was convicted, and ordered the court to again determine Lucio’s guilt or innocence on the specific charge, whether prosecutors presented false testimony or hid evidence from the defense during the original trial.
Current Cameron County District Attorney Luis Saenz, who did not prosecute the case, signed Lucio’s death warrant on Jan. 13 of this year, 13 years after her conviction. The action threw attention to the case, and drew widespread opposition from people who believe her conviction was largely based on a conviction that was coerced and possibly misused; reports suggest that after hours of adamant denials, Lucio’s damning statement, “What do you want me to say? I’m responsible for it,” might have referred to a bite mark on the child’s body, not to the head injury that caused he death.
Five of the 12 jurors who voted to convict her have since said they would have ruled differently if they had known some of the information that was not presented at the trial, or that the judge did not allow them to see. A sixth juror has since died.
It’s worth noting that the district attorney at the time, Armando Villalobos, was later sentenced to 13 years in federal prison for taking bribes to throw cases.
People calling for a new trial, or even outright dismissal, have been widespread, from local residents to famous personalities. They include members of the state legislature, from both political parties.
This newspaper has long opposed the death penalty because executions aren’t reversible, and too many condemned inmates have been exonerated after exculpatory evidence has come to light. Too many prosecutors have failed to play by the rules, too much testimony has later been proven wrong, and too much evidence has been found or reinterpreted when new technology has made its review possible.
Regardless of that obvious bias, however, we, and many people who actually support the death penalty, agree that too many questions remain in this case to proceed with her execution. They agree that before putting Lucio to death, all steps need to be taken to ensure that her death is warranted.
That’s all the appeals court has done — give Lucio more time to prove that she doesn’t deserve execution. Likewise, Saenz has time to answer the questions that have arisen, and to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the death penalty is justified.
Human life is the primary and supreme gift every one of us is given. That is why the penalty for killing a person without just cause is so high. That same standard must apply to our justice system when the life of any person is taken away.
