Whatever you think of the death penalty, it’s difficult to read about the cases of James Broadnax and Rodney Reed in Texas and conclude that justice will be served by executing them.
Broadnax is scheduled to die by lethal injection April 30. He and his cousin, Demarius Cummings, were convicted in the 2008 shooting deaths of Christian music producers Stephen Swan and Matthew Butler outside their Garland studio.
It was such a heinous crime, and the prosecution so straightforward, that then-Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, an opponent of the death penalty, said the case made him reconsider. Swan and Butler were left to bleed to death after Broadnax and Cummings robbed them. In an expletive-laden jailhouse interview, Broadnax confessed: “I murdered them both. No hesitation or nothing.”
Both cousins were convicted of capital murder, but Cummings was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Broadnax, as the shooter, was given the death penalty.
But the case was not as uncomplicated as everyone thought. This newspaper reported that Cummings has come forward to say he was the gunman. In an affidavit, Cummings said he had a rap sheet at the time of the murders while his cousin had only a marijuana conviction. He said he convinced Broadnax to take the fall.
Broadnax’s attorneys said only Cummings’ DNA was found on the murder weapon and asked a court to grant Broadnax a new trial. A spokeswoman for District Attorney John Creuzot said the office would “do its due diligence and respond to the motion.”
In a separate case, the U.S. Supreme Court this month rejected an appeal from Rodney Reed, who was convicted in the rape and murder of Stacey Stites in 1996.
Reed has maintained his innocence all along. His attorneys have argued that Reed and Stites were having an affair, and they offered evidence that Stites’ fiancé, a police officer, killed her. The fiancé was later convicted in another sexual assault, and Reed’s attorneys have pointed to the sworn statements of a man who said the fiancé admitted to killing Stites.
For more than a decade, Reed has sought DNA testing on the belt that was used to strangle Stites. But courts have blocked him. Their logic is that the belt has been contaminated by attorneys and court personnel.
Reed argues that it’s fundamentally unfair to hold any contamination against him when prosecutors have custody of the evidence. Moreover, DNA testing is so advanced today that it can generate reliable information even when there is contamination.
We agree with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote in a dissent: “It is inexplicable why the Bastrop County District Attorney’s Office refuses to allow DNA testing of the belt that was used to kill Stites, despite the very substantial possibility that such testing could exculpate Reed and identify the real killer.”
This editorial page objects to the death penalty because the system is too flawed. Dozens of wrongful convictions in capital cases across the country prove it. If Texas refuses to hear all the evidence in the cases of Broadnax and Reed, it risks adding to that shameful list.