Grading City Hall: See our report card for L.A. City Council President Herb Wesson
Opinion L.A.
Opinion Opinion L.A.

Another incredible case, courtesy of Texas' shaky legal system

His murder conviction was overturned, yet he's spent more than 30 years in Texas prison anyway
Tough to find justice -- for anybody -- in decades-old Texas murder case

Some cases have no easy solutions.

A Texas judge last week set a September date for the retrial of a man sentenced to death in 1977 after being convicted of killing a woman at a bus station, a conviction that was overturned in 1980 because of problems with how the jury had been assembled. The state appealed that decision unsuccessfully, and in 1983, Gov. Mark White commuted the death sentence to life in prison.

But because there was no valid conviction, there was no valid death sentence to commute. The state never got around to scheduling a new trial. And there Jerry Hartfield, 58, a no-longer-convicted murderer, has sat for more than three decades.

Several issues intersect here. First, justice for the victim, Eunice Job Low, a 55-year-old ticket taker who was beaten to death, and for whose murder no one has been held accountable. Or you could argue that Hartfield has been held accountable, since he’s been in the Texas prison system now for nearly 40 years, just not convicted of a crime for most of that time. But the presumption under the law is that he is innocent until proven guilty.

Which is one of the other issues: This is an abject failure of the Texas legal system (again), and as the Dallas Morning News recently said, is “a case to rattle anyone's confidence.” So much time has passed, though, that there likely isn’t anyone left to be held accountable — prosecutors or defense lawyers — for letting the case slide.

So why was Hartfield allowed to languish? A mix of reasons. Without the death penalty hanging over his head, his lawyers sat back to wait for the state to push for a new trial. But that never came, and as time passed, the case fell through the cracks.

And why didn’t Hartfield insist he be released? Because, with an IQ in the low 50s, he didn’t understand what was happening. The dropped case didn’t come to light until 2006, when a fellow inmate pointed out to Hartfield that he shouldn’t be in prison because he was not convicted of a crime. New lawyers for Hartfield filed papers seeking his release, which a judge rejected, and set the retrial date for September.

This is the conundrum: There is no statute of limitations for murder, but there is a constitutional right to a speedy trial, which the state of Texas has violated in epic form. It‘s unclear how much sense it makes to try to hold a trial now. Prosecutors have said they have DNA evidence linking Hartfield to the crime, and a decades-old confession with which he was first convicted. But Hartfield’s lawyers are challenging the confession’s legality, and trying to get a new jury to place faith in DNA evidence that dates from the Jimmy Carter administration could be a hard sell.

Prosecutors have offered Hartfield a deal: life in prison in return for a guilty plea. But if his IQ is confirmed in the 50s, then Hartfield would be ineligible for the death penalty under more recent Supreme Court rulings that bar the execution of intellectually incapacitated adults. Which means that’s not much of a deal for Hartfield.

So what is the fair, and just, thing to do? Free a possible murderer after all this time because of the violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial? Hold a trial based on dusty and challengeable evidence in which Hartfield could be found not guilty, releasing an intellectually challenged man into a modern world he can’t possible recognize?

Like I said, some cases have no easy solutions. My call would be to put the weight on the legal system’s responsibility to perform constitutionally, and find a way to release Hartfield over this egregious violation of his right to a speedy trial. But I suspect many of you will disagree.     

Follow Scott Martelle on Twitter @smartelle

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Why let ex-presidents cash in?

    Why let ex-presidents cash in?

    President Harry Truman once said that he would never lend himself "to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency." His successors have not held themselves to the same standard.

  • Defunding Planned Parenthood is not the same as repealing the right to abortion

    Defunding Planned Parenthood is not the same as repealing the right to abortion

    The GOP-controlled Congress is taking up the cause, once again, of defunding Planned Parenthood. This latest effort comes in response to macabre hidden-camera videos shot by the Center for Medical Progress of staff at Planned Parenthood talking about the grisly practice of chopping up fetuses for...

  • Treatment, not just jail, for the mentally ill

    Treatment, not just jail, for the mentally ill

    The U.S. Department of Justice and Los Angeles County officials are negotiating the details of a consent decree to govern the treatment of mentally ill inmates in the troubled county jails, following more than a decade of reported abuse and excessive force by sheriff's deputies. The final terms...

  • Obama's Clean Energy Plan doesn't go far enough

    Obama's Clean Energy Plan doesn't go far enough

    The coal industry already has its legal claws honed for a court battle over President Obama's Clean Energy Plan, which was unveiled Monday, claiming that it will cost too much and render people jobless. Certainly, in the short term at least, slowing climate change by reducing carbon emissions won't...

  • Political grandstanding on Planned Parenthood

    Political grandstanding on Planned Parenthood

    An effort by Senate Republicans to defund Planned Parenthood failed Monday evening when a procedural measure fell short of the 60 votes needed to proceed. Good. The bill, introduced in the wake of several undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing what the organization does...

  • Does a voting-rights case threaten experimentation?

    Does a voting-rights case threaten experimentation?

    Suppose a state adopts a traditional approach to voting – only one day on which voters can cast their ballots at polling places, with limited opportunities for absentee voting.