Cantu Case News - Did Texas Execute Innocent Man

[CCADP]

Witness who recanted testimony tells Cantu's mother he is sorry


She forgives him; advocacy groups call for changes to prevent wrongful
capital convictions

Juan Moreno, who has recanted testimony that resulted in the execution of
Ruben Cantu in 1993, said Wednesday he conveyed his remorse to Cantu's
mother in an emotional encounter this week.

Aurelia Cantu responded by assuring Moreno that he was a blameless "victim
of the system" like her son, Moreno's lawyer said.

"I told her I felt bad. I let her know how sorry I felt all this time,"
Moreno said in Spanish during a news conference arranged by his defense
attorney, Gerry Goldstein.

Cantu's death sentence for a 1984 murder in San Antonio was based
primarily on what Moreno now says was a faulty identification given under
intense police pressure.

"The entire system - from beginning to end, from left to right - failed,"
Goldstein said. "The fact that Juan has come forward is testament to his
courage and to the moral guilt that he has felt," Goldstein added.

Representatives of the League of United Latin American Citizens and
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund joined Goldstein in
calling for reforms to avert miscarriages of justice.

"We believe executing an innocent person is the most serious error a
criminal justice system can make, and we believe it happened in the case
of Ruben Cantu," MALDEF lawyer Luis Figueroa said.

"The wrongful execution of Mr. Cantu revealed a criminal justice system
that is eager to hold someone accountable but reluctant to fully
investigate the case," he said.

Goldstein and Figueroa attacked what they portrayed as a widespread
perception that the only way to challenge a capital conviction is with DNA
evidence.

They said many cases don't involve DNA and that false confessions and
unreliable eyewitnesses figure prominently in many wrongful convictions,
including Cantu's.

"If we don't fix the problem, it will continue to happen. Let's not make
Ruben Cantu's death meaningless," Figueroa said.

(source: Houston Chronicle)

[CCADP]

THE CANTU CASE Bexar DA has a history in execution under probe -- The
ex-judge looking into innocence claim of man put to death calls her role
minimal


The San Antonio district attorney who promised Wednesday to vigorously
investigate the innocence claim of Ruben Cantu was a player in the case
well before his 1993 execution.

During her days as a Bexar County judge, Susan Reed rejected Cantu's
death-sentence appeal in 1988 and later set his execution date, records
show.

But Reed, who was elected district attorney in 1998, said she does not
remember Cantu and considers her previous involvement minimal and mostly
procedural. She said her staff has already requested thousands of pages of
court, jail and police records related to the case.

Cantu, 17 at the time of the murder-robbery in San Antonio, was executed
Aug. 24, 1993.

In an interview with the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday, Reed emphasized
that her office is just beginning its investigation into claims of Cantu's
innocence. But she said she is more concerned about "whether there is a
murderer out there and whether there is someone who committed perjury that
led to someone being executed."

Her review was prompted by a Chronicle investigation last month that
detailed how the lone eyewitness and the convicted accomplice to the
November 1984 murder both now say that Cantu was never at the crime scene.

A 3rd man, who never testified at Cantu's trial, has claimed that Cantu
was in Waco.

Cantu was convicted and sentenced to death in 1985 for the robbery and
shooting death of Pedro Gomez. Juan Moreno, another victim who barely
survived the robbery, was the key witness against Cantu at trial.

Moreno, who still lives in San Antonio, has said that police persuaded him
to identify Cantu as the killer. Cantu's co-defendant, David Garza, then
15, is in prison in Beaumont on an unrelated case and has named another
San Antonio man as the killer.

A third man, Eloy Gonzales of San Antonio, said he and his brothers were
in Waco with Cantu at the time of the crime.

Reed's office so far has not interviewed those 3 men, in part because
lawyers still are collecting and reviewing records, Reed said.

'Public has a right to know'

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, called Reed's decision to review the case a
great "initial step." But he also has asked the governor to take the case
to the Governor's Criminal Justice Advisory Council.

"There ought to be an independent review in addition to the fine work
coming out of the prosecutor's office," said Ellis, who is a member of the
advisory council. "The public has a right to know if the state of Texas
has made a mistake in the administration of the death penalty."

Ellis is among several lawmakers and advocates who have called for action
by the Criminal Justice Advisory Council, though the group has not
previously tackled such a case.

"The reality that Texas may have executed an innocent man should shock us
all into action," Ellis said in a statement Wednesday. "If the facts we
now have are accurate, this was a catastrophic failure of the entire Texas
criminal justice system and demands investigation."

Kathy Walt, a spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Perry, said the committee is not
"set up to look at individual cases." Walt said Perry is unlikely to act
until Reed makes findings of fact.

Reed, who also serves as president of the Texas District and County
Attorneys Association, said she thinks such investigations can and should
be conducted by local prosecutors.

"I think the responsibility lies with the jurisdiction and the person
elected in that jurisdiction."

Legal ethicist Robert Schuwerk, a University of Houston law professor and
co-author of The Handbook of Texas Lawyer and Judicial Ethics, said Reed's
former role as a judge should not disqualify her as a fact-finder. In
fact, it might motivate her to dig deeper.

"It isn't automatically a conflict," Schuwerk said. "She could have
slammed the door on it. Basically, if I were a judge and I had ruled that
somebody deserved to die and then it came out that maybe there was
evidence suggesting that he wasn't there or he was innocent, I sure would
want to get to the bottom of it."

Reed's role

Reed's involvement as a judge in the Cantu case came after she took the
place of former Bexar County District Court Judge Roy Barrera Jr., who
presided over Cantu's 1985 death-penalty trial.

As Bexar County's 144th District Judge in 1988, Reed reviewed Cantu's writ
of habeas corpus, which argued that a sentence of death constituted cruel
and unusual punishment since Cantu was a juvenile at the time of the
offense and testimony from the lone eyewitness in the case was unreliable.

In the interview Wednesday, Reed said she rejected those arguments without
hearing testimony because, she said, they had been raised and rejected by
other courts. "The court having reviewed the writ of habeas corpus filed
by Ruben Cantu and having considered the allegations is of the opinion the
writ should be denied and no need for an evidentiary hearing exists,"
reads the ruling, signed by Reed on Jan. 6, 1988.

Later, at a hearing, Cantu personally told Reed, "I'm not guilty,"
according to an old San Antonio Express-News brief. Reed said she does not
remember that brief encounter.

Deep digging urged

Nancy Barohn, an attorney who represented Cantu during his appeal, said
she hopes that Reed's staff digs beyond the paperwork.

"If she just gets the file and takes a look, it can't be much different
from the file" she reviewed as judge, Barohn said.

Sam Millsap Jr., a lawyer who was the elected Bexar County district
attorney in 1985, said it was not surprising that Reed ruled against Cantu
as a judge in 1988 since "none of the things (recently) discovered were
available to her."

But Millsap also urged a more thorough review.

"The state of Texas needs to be looking at the fundamental question of
whether or not the system is reliable enough to produce the level of
certainty that ought to be required in civilized society before people are
executed."

Perry had no comment about the Cantu case in a recent press conference.
But Walt said she thinks Cantu's case was not unique and that innocence
questions also have been raised about other death row cases in Texas, such
as that of Leonel Herrera of Edinburg, executed in 1993.

"We've had these kinds of confessions before in other death-penalty
cases," Walt said last Tuesday. "It's happened before."

(source: Houston Chronicle)

[CCADP]

DA considers charge as execution probed


As the 1993 execution of a San Antonio man comes under new scrutiny, Bexar
County's district attorney raised the possibility Wednesday of prosecuting
the only eyewitness in the case - the same person who recently came
forward to say Texas executed an innocent man.

The witness, a Mexican national who was shot 9 times on the same night his
friend was murdered, told a jury in 1985 that Ruben Cantu was the killer.

Since then, he has recanted, telling the Houston Chronicle that detectives
pressured him into picking the then-17-year-old Cantu out of a photo
lineup and providing the key testimony that led to the conviction.

Juan Moreno's about-face has thrust San Antonio front and center into the
debate over capital punishment and prompted prosecutors here to dust off
an old file and consider whether it contains a grave mistake.

With Bexar County's inquiry only just begun, District Attorney Susan Reed
said she couldn't predict how it would end or how long it would last, but
she was clear about its focus.

"Did someone commit perjury? That's a crime," Reed said. "Did their
perjury lead to an execution, lead to someone's death? Those are criminal
matters."

Suddenly a subject of international attention, Moreno was visibly
uncomfortable Wednesday as he timidly fielded questions from a crush of
reporters, all the while holding his wife's hand.

Then an undocumented immigrant, Moreno repeatedly failed to pick Cantu out
of a photo lineup but changed stories months after the murder when
detectives twice came back to him with similar lineups.

By then, Cantu had shot an off-duty police officer during a barroom
squabble, reinvigorating investigators' interest in the murder of Moreno's
friend.

"I felt a lot of pressure, a lot of pressure from the court, and I wanted
to get out from under it all," Moreno said in Spanish.

Moreno's attorney, Gerald Goldstein, brushed aside the idea that Moreno
could face any criminal liability for changing his account after so many
years.

Few jurors, Goldstein said, would convict a man who was shot nine times
and was still recovering when police came 3 times to repeatedly show him a
photo lineup that included Cantu.

Besides, Goldstein said, he doubted that Reed would go off "half-cocked"
and charge his client. "I think she's a better politician than that."

Reed was not district attorney when Cantu was prosecuted, but this is not
her 1st encounter with the case. She was a judge in 1987. In fact, she was
one of several judges who reviewed Cantu's appeal and upheld his
conviction.

Both Reed and Goldstein described the ruling as a minor part of the case,
but others believe that someone who previously upheld the conviction
should not now be deciding whether he was wrongfully put to death.

"We definitely want people who can look at it with fresh eyes," said Luis
Figueroa, a lawyer with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund.

MALDEF and others have asked for the case to be examined by the governor's
Criminal Justice Advisory Council, a newly created panel that is reviewing
various aspects of investigations and prosecutions in Texas.

But Kathy Walt, a spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Perry, said the governor
formed the council to consider broad issues, not individual cases.

That task, she said, would be better handled by Bexar County's district
attorney.

(source: San Antonio Express-News)

***************

SA Man Reiterates Executed Man's Innocence


The lone witness to a fatal shooting in 1984 reiterated Wednesday the
innocence of a San Antonio man who was executed for the crime.

Juan Moreno held a news conference at the offices of his attorney, Gerald
Goldstein, to ask for changes in the judicial process in death penalty
cases.

Through an interpreter, Moreno told reporters that he identified Ruben
Cantu as the triggerman in a robbery that left a man dead and Cantu
wounded because he was afraid and felt pressured by authorities.

Before the news conference, Moreno met with Cantu's mother, who said she
doesn't blame Moreno for her son's death.

Cantu, who professed his innocence during the trial and on death row, was
17 when the crime occurred and 26 when he was executed.

A co-defendant in the case, David Garza, broke his silence to proclaim
Cantu's innocence earlier this month. Garza, who pleaded guilty to
robbery, said that years of guilt made him come forward.

Garza, who is currently serving a prison sentence for another crime, said
that Cantu wasn't with him the night of the armed robbery.

(source: KSAT News)

[CCADP]

The system failed Ruben M. Cantu


We hope the U.S. Supreme Court is paying attention to Ruben Cantu, a
troubled San Antonio teenager with a history of crime. We hope Texans
remember his name and his words after a Bexar County jury found Cantu
guilty and sentenced him to death.

"My name is Ruben M. Cantu, and I am only 18 years old. I got to the 9th,
grade and I have been framed in a capital murder case.

We all should remember Cantu's case and the lessons it offers as the
country carries out its 1000th execution since 1976 scheduled for today in
North Carolina. It now appears that Cantu was right. That means that Texas
executed an innocent person. He was 17 at the time of the crime.

Cantu's case should shock even hard-core death penalty opponents. Cantu
was no saint. He tangled with the criminal justice system from a young
age. But he apparently didn't rob and shoot Pedro Gomez to death in 1984.
Yet in 1993, Cantu was strapped to a gurney and injected with lethal drugs
for that crime.

Texas' system is barbarous. What else can be said of a system that fails
to sort the innocent from the guilty? What else can be said of a system
whose checks and balances focus almost exclusively on whether the process
was followed and deadlines met rather than the more important - and moral
- questions of innocence and fairness? We're not talking about a few
flaws, but rather deep inequities and defects that deny defendants the
basics for a fair trial, including competent lawyers and investigators and
thorough and rigorous appeals. Nowadays, the wrongfully convicted can be
exonerated via DNA evidence. Thank goodness. But Cantu's case demonstrates
how the system fails when there is no DNA.

No credible eyewitnesses or physical evidence tied Cantu to the Gomez
murder. Witnesses who could have provided an alibi were never questioned,
and it now appears that police pressured the lone eyewitness who survived
the shooting into identifying Cantu as the shooter. That eyewitness, Juan
Moreno, an undocumented worker at the time who was wounded in the
shooting, now says Cantu was never at the crime scene. (A separate witness
now says Cantu was hundreds of miles away in Waco.) Moreno has apologized
to Cantu's mother and gone public to help clear Cantu's name and his own
conscience. Cantu's convicted accomplice, David Garza, said Cantu wasn't
at the crime scene and has named another man as the killer.

All of those facts were brought to light by a Houston Chronicle
investigation. Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed has promised to
vigorous investigate Cantu's claims of innocence. It's doubtful Reed can
pull that off because of her role in the case. As a former Bexar County
judge, she rejected Cantu's death sentence appeal in 1988, the Chronicle
reported.

We can't bring Cantu back. But his case can yield constructive lessons
about how to fix Texas' capital punishment system. Gov. Rick Perry can
start by directing his Criminal Justice Advisory Council to investigate
the Cantu case, as state Sen. Rodney Ellis has requested.

The advisory group must be more aggressive in scrutinizing cases before
people are executed. Laying the facts out in the open, no matter how
painful or shameful, will focus attention on the weaknesses and defects in
the system. That should produce solutions and spare innocent people from
death.

Once a person is convicted of a capital crime in Texas, there is precious
little (except intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court) that will stop an
execution. Certainly not innocence.

Remember the name - Ruben M. Cantu.

(source: Editorial, Austin American-Statesman

[CCADP]

'Murder by perjury' in Cantu case?


Juan Moreno could end up making Job look lucky.

First, at the age of 19, he was shot nine times and left for dead in a
1984 robbery in San Antonio. A companion of Moreno was shot to death
during the robbery.

Then, Moreno says, he was pressured by police into identifying the wrong
man after repeatedly saying it wasn't him.

That man, Ruben Cantu, was executed based on Moreno's testimony in a 1985
trial.

Now Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed says if her investigation
supports Moreno's contention that the wrong man was executed, she may file
charges against him.

For perjury? No. The 3-year statute of limitations ran out a long time
ago.

For the murder of Ruben Cantu.

Murder has no statute of limitations.

A passionate prosecutor

Cantu's lawyers, Gerald Goldstein and Cynthia Orr, say Moreno is
courageous in coming forward after 20 years of feeling guilt to admit his
role in the Cantu affair.

They describe him as a meek person who was, as a 19-year-old illegal
immigrant, probably even meeker and therefore subject to pressure from
police.

Reed, as passionate a prosecutor as Goldstein and Orr are defense
attorneys, sees it differently.

"You guys," she says, referring to the Houston Chronicle and reporter Lise
Olsen, who broke the Ruben Cantu story two weeks ago, "have put up a guy
who says, 'I went into a courtroom. I lied. I knew I lied.'

"A man has been executed because of that lie. That is pretty serious
stuff. There are consequences for that."

A scared, malleable kid

"If there were not consequences, then the system would allow itself to be
attacked. The integrity of the judicial system is all based on truth, most
importantly presenting the truth to the jury."

She said her office's investigation would also look at the behavior of the
police, but she doesn't think their behavior would exonerate Moreno.

She pointed out that Texas law provides a defense for crimes committed
"under duress."

But that defense covers only crimes committed "because (the accused) was
compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to
himself or another."

"It does not say the threat of deportation to Mexico," she said.

In fact, Moreno, who is now a legal citizen, denies police made that
threat or any other.

The pressure was more subtle.

Defense attorneys Orr and Goldstein contend that Moreno was a scared,
malleable kid, and the real culprits were the cops who pressured him.

Reed says that might make a difference in the punishment phase, but it
does not relieve Moreno of responsibility.

"When you walk into that courtroom you walk in yourself," she said. "You
sit in the witness stand and swear to God you're going to tell the truth.

"If his original thing was to tell the police what they wanted to hear, he
had the opportunity to fix it in court. He then had 10 years (actually
eight years before the execution) to fix it."

Ironically, the statute under which Reed says she would likely charge
murder is the same one used here in Harris County to charge the Pasadena
school bus driver for murder for accidentally running over a 9-year-old
girl.

Under that statute, it is felony murder when, in the course of committing
another felony (perjury, in this case) a person commits "an act clearly
dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual."

In Texas, I suppose, accusing someone of capital murder is clearly
dangerous to that person's life.

I want to make one thing clear. Reed is not just focused on going after
Moreno. Before she mentioned him in our Friday conversation, she said, "If
your story is correct and (Cantu) is innocent, that means there is another
murderer out there."

And she told reporter Olsen that if the story is correct, it demonstrates
a nonfunctioning justice system.

But Reed is ready to punish perjury partly as a deterrent.

There's one problem. By doing so, she could also be deterring others from
confessing that, under pressure from police, they gave false testimony.

Would that make the justice system function better?

(source: Houston Chronicle)

[CCADP]

The question only Texas can answer----State must convene a panel to
investigate whether innocent men have been executed


A recent Houston Chronicle investigative report raises a question that
only the state of Texas can answer: Was Ruben Cantu innocent of the crime
for which he was executed?

The Chronicle story, ("The Cantu case: Death and doubt / Did Texas execute
an innocent man?," Nov. 20, Page One) strongly suggests that Cantu was
innocent of the crime in question. Specifically, the report shows that:

- The surviving victim and sole witness now says that Cantu did not shoot
him - but that he felt pressured by police to identify Cantu as the
killer.

- The convicted co-defendant, who pleaded guilty, has signed a sworn
affidavit saying that Cantu was not present at the killing.

- The judge, prosecutor, head juror and defense attorney all acknowledge
that Cantu's conviction seems to have been built on omissions and lies.

- The police reports have unexplained omissions and irregularities.

- The investigation focused on Cantu only after he shot an off-duty police
officer in an unrelated bar altercation months later.

While the Chronicle has established a strong case that Ruben Cantu was
executed for a crime he did not commit, it is incapable of answering the
question with the certainty that Texans deserve. Only the government can
do that, because only the government can empanel an expert, objective
panel of fact finders and compel the documents and testimony necessary to
determine if an innocent person has been executed.

This question transcends differing positions on the death penalty. That's
because nobody benefits when an innocent person is executed: not the
victim, the police, the prosecution or the legal system - and certainly
not the public. The only person who benefits is the real perpetrator.

The harm is inflicted upon not only the crime victim, the executed
innocent and their families, but also Texans' faith in their justice
system and future jurors' confidence in evidence of guilt presented to
them.

Cantu is not the only Texas execution where serious questions about
innocence linger. As the Texas Senate Judiciary Committee heard earlier
this year, despite his vehement claim of innocence, Cameron Todd
Willingham was executed for the arson/murder of his daughters, who died in
a fire that consumed their trailer. The state relied upon an outdated
arson theory to convict him of setting the fire.

Texas exonerated and compensated another person, Ernest Willis, who had
been convicted based on that same arson theory, after agreeing with the
expert testimony proving the arson theory invalid. Despite his pleas of
innocence - and his lawyer's last-minute efforts to have the state review
the case in light of the Willis exoneration - Willingham was executed.
That arson theory is now completely discredited.

Consider also the execution of Claude Howard Jones, whose capital murder
conviction was based primarily on accomplice testimony. Jones - no angel
he - nonetheless protested that he did not commit the murder. Texas law
requires that accomplice testimony be corroborated by independent evidence
in order to convict, and in this case that evidence was a hair left at the
crime scene. At trial, a Department of Public Safety forensic analyst
testified that microscopic analysis indicated that the hair could have
been Jones', but couldn't have been the victim's or the accomplice's.

On the day of Jones' execution, Gov. George W. Bush's office inquired of
DPS about the possibility of obtaining "m-DNA (mitochondrial DNA) results
from a 1[-inch] head hair fragment" left at the scene.

DPS did not directly answer that question. It's not clear if DPS told the
governor's office about the known problems with microscopic hair
inclusions and exclusions, or about the ability of mitochondrial DNA
testing to more reliably exclude suspects and point to inclusions, nor if
Gov. Bush was aware of this inquiry. DPS did suggest that the governor's
office "contact Joe Dizinno, FBI Lab, at 202-324-4416 to discuss
likelihood of obtaining M-DNA results from a 1[-inch] head hair fragment."

There is no record of that call ever having been made. The hair was not
tested. Jones was executed.

We have no idea whether DNA testing would generate evidence showing that
Claude Jones was guilty, innocent or that the evidence against him was
legally insufficient. It is our understanding that the hair found on the
counter was made a court exhibit at Jones' trial and might be available
for mitochondrial DNA testing at this time. Court exhibits containing
physical evidence used to convict executed individuals are not available
for public scrutiny or testing under the existing law of Texas. They are,
however, available to the government. The hair should be tested.

Texas must convene an expert, objective commission and empower it to
investigate these compelling questions of the whether or not Texas has
executed an innocent person. Texans deserve to know.

(source: Editorial, Houston Chronicle -- Barry Scheck is the co-director
of The Innocence Project. Ellis, a Democrat, represents District 13 in
Houston, Dec. 3)

*****************

Cantu's legacy----Bexar County district attorney's probe is only the 1st
step needed in a comprehensive re-evaluation of executed man's case.


The conviction and execution of Ruben Cantu could turn out to be the 1st
documented example of the state of Texas carrying out capital punishment
on an innocent man. As reported by the Chronicle's Lise Olsen, the
evidence brought against the then-17-year-old for a 1984 murder committed
during a robbery has since splintered.

The sole eyewitness, one of the shooting victims in the robbery, has now
recanted his testimony and claimed he was pressured by police to identify
Cantu as the assailant. The accomplice in the crime now says someone else
was the gunman. The Chronicle located a man who confirms that Cantu was in
Waco and not in San Antonio the night of the killing.

The finality of the death penalty makes it impossible to reverse a
miscarriage of justice. Cantu steadfastly maintained to his death that he
had been framed. What remains for legal authorities is the duty to examine
the case record, determine if indeed the San Antonian was wrongly
convicted and, if so, make recommendations that will keep other innocent
people from suffering a similar fate. In cases like his where eyewitness
identification is the only evidence, new safeguards are clearly needed for
the application of the ultimate penalty.

Such an examination must be carried out by an impartial legal authority or
commission. Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed is to be commended
for reopening the records of Cantu's case for review, but her involvement
in the chain of events leading to his execution should mandate a higher
level review as well by people unconnected to the matter.

Before being elected district attorney, Reed was the state district judge
who denied Cantu's final death sentence appeal in 1988 and then set
Cantu's August 1993 execution date. She was not the trial judge.

Reed now says she doesn't remember the case and had only minimal judicial
involvement. In an indication of priorities, Reed told the Chronicle she's
more concerned about whether a murderer remains at large and whether
perjury that led to a wrongful execution occurred. While those issues are
important, equally critical is an examination of the facts in order to
change the way Texas courts handle the application of the death penalty.

Reed is qualified to lead a search for the real killer, if one is out
there. And no one is questioning her motives or ethics in investigating
the outcome of the case. But her previous involvement could taint public
perception of the impartiality of the examination.

More desirable are the recommendations by Texas Innocence Network director
David Dow and Houston state Sen. Rodney Ellis that the governor's Criminal
Justice Advisory Council undertake the job of an independent review of
Cantu's case. "The reality that Texas may have executed an innocent man
should shock us all into action," said Ellis, who characterized the known
facts of the Cantu case "as pointing toward a catastrophic failure of the
entire Texas criminal justice system."

It's unfortunate that Gov. Rick Perry is of the opinion, as he indicated
through his spokeswoman, Kathy Walt, that his advisory council is an
unsuitable venue for examining individual criminal cases. Even if Perry
set up the council to deal with broader judicial issues, the notion that
an innocent person was executed is an urgent matter worthy of attention at
the highest level. According to Walt her boss is unlikely to take any
action on Cantu's case before Reed finishes her review. That's
disappointing.

Walt suggested that Cantu's case might not be unique and that such claims
of wrongful executions have come up before. Rather than a defense for
inaction, this was a chance for the governor of a state that executes more
inmates than any other to declare that even one wrongful death is too
many. He should have pledged to fully examine the facts of Ruben Cantu's
execution and order the Criminal Justice Advisory Council to immediately
undertake a thorough and speedy evaluation of this exceedingly disturbing
case.

(source: Editorial, Houston Chronicle, Dec. 3)

[CCADP]

Monday, December 5, 2005
Cantu case getting more attention
by Owen Courrèges | 12/05/2005 8:25 am


I’m sorry I haven’t posted in a week, but my finals in law school are now upon me. That means I study very little unrelated to the law during this time, unless it gets me on a tear.

The Ruben Cantu case has me on a tear.

The story has gotten continued attention, mostly from the Chronicle itself (apparently, they wanted to link Cantu’s putative innocence to the landmark 1,000th post-Furhman execution). Most of the Chron’s stuff, itself an odd mix of news reporting anti-death penalty zeal, has been picked up by other editorialists and columnists condemning the death penalty. Most recently, Slate has picked up the story with an opinion piece from Dan Markel, law professor and co-founder of Prawfsblog.

But the Chron’s version of events have some very loose ends. Here are questions I’d like to see answered, and answered in such a way that I actually believe Cantu’s innocence:

1. Why has the State’s primary witness, Juan Moreno, changed his story?

Juan Moreno was the surviving victim of the robbery/murder for which Cantu was executed. He now claims that he was intimidated by the police into falsely implicating Cantu and on the stand, and for the eight years until his execution. However, his claim makes little sense. He has explicitly stated that the police in no way threatened him. The Chronicle has described the supposedly police intimidation as "subtle" — that the police strongly indicated that they knew Cantu was guilty. But without any serious allegations of police misconduct (i.e., threats), why would Moreno misidentify Cantu as the perpetrator?

It is true that Moreno initially declined to recognize Cantu in a photo array, but police did subsequent photo arrays, and finally Moreno ID’ed Cantu. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals hold that the identification pretrial identification procedure was suggestive, since repeated photo arrays with the same person (Cantu) tended to indicate that police had somebody in mind. However, they held that the risk of irreparable misidentification was slight since Moreno had a clear view of Cantu during the crime. In any event, there was no evidence offered of police intimidation, and Moreno doesn’t dispute the record.

Also, Moreno’s explanation for why he initially refused to identify Cantu was sound — Cantu was a member of a violent youth gang that might retaliate against Moreno’s family. This explanation certainly makes more sense that Moreno’s current story — that even in the complete absence of any threats by the police, he was so overwhelmed by "subtle" intimidation that he perjured himself, sent and innocent man to death row, and refused to do anything about it for eight years. And now the guilt for this utterly irrational act has caught up with him. Thanks to an investigation by the Houston Chronicle, he’s finally ready to speak up.

Am I the only one who thinks this sounds fishy? There’s got to be more to this story, because what Moreno is saying now just doesn’t make much sense to me (unless Moreno is a truly ridiculous person). I’d like the Chronicle to find out the truth.

2. Why should we to believe the story of David Garza, Cantu’s co-defendant, who now claims Cantu was innocent?

The revelations of David Garza are even less credible. Garza, now incarcerated, says that that a third teen was the person who actually committed the crime with him. Cantu and Garza were close friends who apparently did everything together, but on the night of the murder, Cantu was supposedly gone, and another teen committed the crime with him. The man who Garza implicates only has one domestic violence conviction on his record– nothing to indicate he’s a cold-blooded killer. He emphatically denies any involvement. For his part, Garza claims that a gangland "code of silence" kept he and Cantu from clarifying the situation in open court. It isn’t clear why this kept Garza from speaking out sooner.

The police claim that Garza identified Cantu prior to his trial, which Garza denies. So bascially, Garza claims that the police are lying, this third person is lying, and that a "code of silence" sent Cantu to death row. Everyone’s lying but Garza, and of course, now Moreno. I just don’t see why his affidavit should carry any weight.

The Chronicle apparently hasn’t bothered to show this third man’s picture to Moreno in order to see if the two stories match (if they have an it’s buried somewhere in one of their articles, I’d love to hear about it). If Moreno can’t identify this third party, or says it wasn’t him, that definitely would raise my suspicions.

3. What about other issues with the case?

The Chronicle has also made hay of the fact that evidence was offered in court that a month after the murder, Cantu had shot Officer Joe de la Luz several times in a pool hall. Luz claimed that the attack was unprovoked, while Cantu claimed that they’d had an altercation and Luz flashed a gun in his waistband and threatened him. Cantu’s attorney’s called up six other San Antonio police officers to dispute Luz’s testimony as to the indicent. By the Chronicle’s reckoning, this tainted the jury findings. By all reports, Luz was a bit of a druken hothead — he had commendations in his record, but also reprimands and incident reports. Cantu’s story was believable.

However, the jury was exposed to both sides, and no matter what the facts, Cantu was essentially guilty of attempted murder, or at least assault with a deadly weapon. Even if Luz threatened him and revealed he was armed, that doesn’t make pulling your gun and emptying a clip into a person "self-defense." Luz was lucky to survive. Most people shot several times wind up dead, and I doubt Cantu was such a sharpshooter that Luz’s survival was in any way intentional. The jury was correct to take the incident into account. What reason is there to believe otherwise?

The Chronicle has also made hay over the existence of other alibi witnesses who didn’t testify. Cantu’s sister testified as an alibi witness at trial, but the jury didn’t believe her. The Chronicle has identified a non-family witness, but it’s not altogether clear what his motivations are (A family friend? A fellow gang member?). Cantu’s brother’s could have also testified, but it’s unlikely that their testimony would have added anything, since they are apparently violent thugs themselves. Remember, the man implicated by Garza claims to himself be the victim of continuing harassment from Cantu’s brothers, who want to intimidate him into changing his story.

In conclusion, the case is certainly messy, but I’m not quite sure that it justifies the Chronicle’s conclusion that Cantu was "probably innocent." I see a great many people changing their stories, and not much here to believe.

[CCADP]

Innocence vs. death penalty

In need of reform

I COULD not agree more with Barry Scheck and state Sen. Rodney Ellis [see
the Dec. 4 Outlook article "RIGHT TO KNOW / The question only Texas can
answer / State must convene a panel to investigate whether innocent men
have been executed"]. Considering the fact that many people have come to
the conclusion that Ruben Cantu was innocent of the crime he was convicted
of, it is obvious that Texas and the rest of the country need to handle
death penalty cases with much more sensitivity.

No one benefits when an innocent person is convicted. With our crime lab
in shambles and unable to provide adequate evidence for cases, one would
think that trials would be deliberated with more care and the death
penalty not handed out so easily.

But that is not the case: Harris County continues to be the county that
executes the most people in the country. And now it has finally happened:
a man who was almost certainly innocent has been executed.

Texans deserve to have the best judicial process possible. This is no
longer about whether or not a person believes in the death penalty as a
punishment - this is about doing the right thing. The right thing is to
ensure that innocent people are not executed. The system must be reformed.

MEENU MENON, Kingwood

**

Moratorium time

I AGREE with the Chronicle's Dec. 4 editorial ["Cantu's legacy / Bexar
County district attorney's probe is only the first step needed in a
comprehensive re-evaluation of executed man's case."] that stated that
"the notion that an innocent person was executed is an urgent matter
worthy of attention at the highest level."

I do not believe, however, that having the governor's Criminal Justice
Advisory Council investigate the case of Ruben Cantu would be the best
response to the situation.

The probability that Texas has executed an innocent person should be
treated as a state emergency.

Gov. Rick Perry should add the issue of a moratorium on executions to the
upcoming special session of the Legislature that will be called in the
spring.

We cannot wait until the next regular session to enact a moratorium,
because there may be other innocent persons among the 30 to 35 executions
that could take place before a regular session could enact a moratorium in
2007.

There will not be enough time in the special session in the spring for
legislators to deal with all the issues that can lead to the execution of
an innocent person. But there would be ample time for them to enact a
moratorium.

I am sure that the results of a vote on an amendment to the state's
Constitution would show that Texans are ready to stop executions until
they can be assured that innocent people are not at risk of execution.

SCOTT COBB president, Texas Moratorium Network, Austin

(source: Opinion, Houston Chronicle)

[CCADP]

DA To Investigate Murder Witness' Lying Claims


Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed said Monday that her office
plans to investigate claims by a local man who admitted he committed
perjury at a murder trial that ulimately ended in the execution of a
26-year-old man.

"There will be an investigation to get to the bottom of this," Reed said.
"Our laws have consequences to causing someone's death.

"It is very important that it be looked into ... because you have someone
who lied and caused a man's death. It would be no different than taking a
gun out and shooting you through the heart."

Speaking through his attorneys, Moreno admitted last week that he wrongly
pointed the finger at 26-year old Ruben Cantu in 1984 after feeling
pressure from police to do so.

Reed said Moreno hasn't officially come forward to change his story with
the District Attorney's Office.

Reed said the statute of limitations for perjury is three years in Texas,
so she can't pursue perjury charges against Moreno, but if she determines
he did lie, he could face murder charges.

Moreno's attorney, Gerald Goldstein, said he feels that Reed's actions are
not the appropriate response.

"It is a shame that our district attorney sees fit to investigate someone
who was a victim of a brutal crime shooting, then victimized by
overzealous police. And now she seeks to victimize him again," Goldstein
said in a statement.

But Reed stands by her decision to investigate.

"If there is a lying witness, that witness has to be held accountable for
those actions," she said.

(source: KSAT News)

[CCADP]

His name is Ruben M. Cantu, he was framed, and we killed him


If Ruben Cantu had been sentenced to life in prison, he would be a free
man today.

He would have his freedom not because he served enough time to earn parole
from the 1984 incident that put him behind bars. Cantu would be free
because he would have been exonerated.

It now appears that Cantu did not rob and kill Pedro Gomez, a construction
worker. We now know that Cantu had an alibi that put him in Waco, about
170 miles from the crime scene in San Antonio. We knew then that there
were no fingerprints, DNA or any other physical evidence that tied Cantu
to the crime. But there was an eyewitness. Juan Moreno, who was wounded in
the attack, identified Cantu as the shooter. Twice Moreno failed to
identify Cantu from photos police showed him. But the third time was the
charm. Moreno, an undocumented worker in 1984, recently said he fingered
Cantu because police pressured him to do so. Cantu had a bad history with
police. Moreno came forward in recent weeks to clear Cantu's name and his
own conscience. He told his story to the Houston Chronicle. The accomplice
convicted with Cantu likewise has named another person as the killer. Even
the former district attorney who prosecuted Cantu for capital murder has
conceded that he, too, erred.

We should be celebrating the release of an innocent man after more than 20
years in the pen. A mother should be welcoming her prodigal son's return
during the Christmas season. But that can never be because Cantu is dead.
Texas executed him in 1993 for a crime virtually nobody - including the
head juror during his trial - now believes he committed.

Welcome to Texas justice. Here, they really do kill them and rely on God
to sort it out.

No matter where you stand on capital punishment, this case should offend
your sense of decency. It's not just the moral dilemma about whether Texas
or any state should be in the business of executing people or whether
capital punishment is necessary to protect society from violent criminals.
This case unearths a frightening truth about the fallibility of
government. Cantu's unwavering assertions of innocence have returned to
haunt us more than a decade after he was strapped to a steel gurney and
injected with lethal drugs.

"My name is Ruben M. Cantu. I got to the 9th grade, and I have been framed
in a capital murder case."

Can we now admit that our legal system is fallible and its mistakes can
kill innocent people?

We shouldn't be surprised. Since capital punishment was reinstated 25
years ago, 122 people have been exonerated and released from death row.
The criminal justice system is a government bureaucracy. Government
programs are notoriously fallible, whether we're talking about the Federal
Emergency Management Agency or the CIA that botched prewar intelligence
about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Frankly, there is no way that the government can run a foolproof system.
Former Bexar County District Attorney Sam Millsap Jr., who prosecuted
Cantu, knows that all too well.

"We have a system that permits people to be convicted based on evidence
that could be wrong because it's mistaken or because it's corrupt,"
Millsap told the Chronicle.

It's difficult to stop Texas' death machine once it revs up because the
state lacks the rigorous checks and balances of other states. Texas
desperately needs an Innocence Commission with real power to investigate,
and if necessary, halt executions. That duty should fall on the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals, but that court has morphed into a rubber stamp
for prosecutors. That is a strange posture for the judicial body that is
supposed to be the state's last resort for catching errors and sorting the
guilty from the innocent.

But this is a court that found nothing wrong with a lawyer who slept
through his client's trial, prosecutors who hid key evidence from the
defense, incompetent defense lawyers or witnesses who perjured themselves.
The appeals court overlooked those details or deemed them insignificant in
several capital murder trials.

Thank goodness the U.S. Supreme Court stopped some of those executions.
Post-conviction DNA testing also has helped a number of defendants prove
their innocence. But what about the cases, such as Cantu's, where there is
no DNA? The Supreme Court didn't intervene, didn't stop Texas from
executing the wrong person. I doubt God wants any part in sorting this
mess out.

(source: Opinion, Austin American-Statesman)

[CCADP]

Is recanting witness a victim or a villain?

Web Posted: 12/18/2005 12:00 AM CST
Maro Robbins
Express-News Staff Writer

The witness had answered just six questions about how he picked the suspect from a police lineup and, already, he was trembling.



More coverage
Houston Chronicle series on the Cantu case


"Why are you shaking?" the judge asked the slight 19-year-old Mexican national who minutes earlier had sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

At the time, Juan Moreno blamed his nerves and illness. With a colostomy bag at his side, it was apparent he still was healing from the nine bullets that had pierced his neck, arms, kidney, bowels and liver.

But now, 20 years later, Moreno says his fear had another dimension. He claims he was so pressured by detectives that he falsely accused a San Antonio teenager and lied at the murder trial, which sent a 17-year-old Ruben Cantu to death row.

Coming more than a decade after Cantu received a lethal injection, Moreno's recantation suddenly has turned the timid immigrant into a polarizing figure. No longer simply a sympathetic shooting victim, he's the man who claims Texas has innocent blood on its hands.

Some praise Moreno, now a 40-year-old married contractor, for bravely exposing systemic failings in the courtroom and the unacceptable risks of capital punishment.

Others wonder if he should be prosecuted for an unheard of crime — using the execution chamber to commit murder.

While the Bexar County district attorney is examining this and other questions about the case, first raised by the Houston Chronicle, still others doubt anyone can definitively determine which of Moreno's clashing accounts is false.

And though they know of no reason Moreno would lie now, those involved in the original case are not yet willing to abandon the version of justice they collectively worked hard to obtain.

"People may think it was proven he was innocent. I don't think you can necessarily say that without having all the players. I mean, we'll never know, and that's unfortunate," said Barbara Parker Hervey, who defended Cantu's conviction on appeal when she was a prosecutor.

Now one of the judges on the state's highest criminal court, Hervey added, "Everyone involved in looking at this case right now should be in agreement" that it involves compelling questions about eyewitness identification procedures.

"In my opinion, the best thing we can do for Mr. Cantu is to address those questions for other cases."

Witness to murder


Then an undocumented immigrant, Juan Moreno became an eyewitness Nov. 8, 1984, when he woke to find a rifle pointed at him and his co-worker Pedro Gomez.
Two teenage burglars had broken into the house where Moreno and Gomez, both construction workers, were staying.

When Gomez reached for a pistol stashed under a mattress, the gunman opened fire. Nine times, he shot each man. Only Moreno survived.

Ruben Montoya Cantu lived on the same street and became a suspect when school administrators passed on a tip that he was involved in the shooting.

A ninth-grade dropout and the member of a street gang, Cantu already was known to authorities.

A year earlier he had been accused of chasing a man with a knife and hitting him with a brick but had been acquitted of an attempted murder charge in juvenile court.

But Cantu's picture had no impact at first when it was added to the photo lineup. Moreno still didn't identify anyone as the killer.

The investigation seemed at a standstill for about three months until Cantu gave authorities a reason to want him prosecuted. On March 1, 1985, he shot an off-duty police officer during a bar fight.

The day after the shooting, and then on the following day, detectives went back to Moreno with a different lineup that once again included Cantu. Finally, Moreno picked Cantu out of the lineup.

Days later, Moreno also identified a second man, David Garza, as the accomplice.

Garza, who later pleaded guilty to burglary, has told conflicting stories over the years and is now in prison on an unrelated burglary.

Cantu's trial hinged almost entirely on Moreno. His word was, according to the lead prosecutor, the only evidence directly linking the defendant to the crime.

According to a transcript, Moreno's testimony was strained, with the coherence of the questioning sometimes lost in translation and the answers usually limited to one or two words.

Even so, he identified Cantu as the shooter no less than 15 times at a pretrial hearing and in front of the jury.

And the sight of the meek Moreno lifting his shirt to show his scars was its own powerful testimony, Cantu's defense attorney Andrew Carruthers said.

"He bore the credibility of nine bullet holes in his torso," Carruthers said.

'The system works'


Moreno's testimony still seems believable, Bill Harris, the second prosecutor in the case, said last week after he reviewed his notes from the trial.
Harris, like several other prosecutors and investigators in the case, is not convinced that a mistake was made and that an innocent life was cut short at age 26.

"It's my trust that the system works," said Harris, who spent 29 years as a prosecutor. "The jury heard the evidence."

In defending the conviction, others also cited information never presented to the jury, such as the accusation that came from a teenager who claimed he heard Cantu admit shooting the two immigrants.

The teenager later refused to testify after he was shot at while driving down the street.

He passed a lie detector test back then and passed another polygraph last week when he also gave a sworn statement to investigators, First Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said.

"So far we have no reason to disbelieve (him)," said Herberg, who joined the DA's office after Cantu was tried.

Moreno once seemed equally credible to police and prosecutors.

Now they sound bewildered by the suggestion that their witness lied under oath and then remained silent until the injustice was irreversible.

Few seem ready to forgive false testimony even if Moreno was, as he claims, pressured by detectives.

Telling police what they want to hear in the squad room is not the same, critics say, as repeating it, first privately to prosecutors and then publicly to jurors.

"If, for argument's sake, this guy's telling the truth and Cantu in fact had nothing to do with it, they should prosecute" him, said the retired detective Santos Ballesa, one of several investigators who showed Moreno a lineup.

Bruce Baxter, the lead prosecutor in the trial who now practices family law in Washington, was alone in taking a milder view.

Having watched more than 100 felony trials, Baxter said he doubted that prosecuting Moreno would teach other witnesses to honor their oaths or make Bexar County a safer place.

"Is it that Juan Moreno deserves to be punished for what happened 20 years ago?" he asked. "Or is it that we're all twisted up inside by this whole question and we need someone to point the finger at and nail so we can feel better about ourselves?"

But what charges?


District Attorney Susan Reed hasn't answered that question for herself yet, but she has stressed that, if it's warranted, her office would press charges.
Exactly how remains to be seen. The deadline for prosecuting perjury in the case elapsed years ago.

A murder charge, experts say, would require proof that the perjury actually led directly and clearly to Cantu's execution. So would a manslaughter prosecution.

Saying Moreno's testimony caused Cantu's execution would ask jurors to ignore other pivotal players in the case, such as prosecutors who chose to seek the death penalty, a judge who rejected a plea deal and other witnesses who testified at the trial's punishment phase.

"I think that's at best a very long shot," said Gerald Reamey, a St. Mary's University criminal law professor.

The focus on Moreno exasperates those who believe he was especially vulnerable to police pressure as a young illegal immigrant still recovering from a near-death trauma.

"Focusing on Mr. Moreno is a side issue," said Luis Figueroa, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "The real issue is: How to prevent (wrongful convictions) from happening in the future."

Any scrutiny, he said, should be directed at whatever it was that led Moreno to falsely accuse Cantu.

In other words, the police lineup.

'I just feel nervous'


From the outset, Cantu's defense lawyers insisted that investigators improperly steered Moreno toward Cantu.
They fought to keep Moreno's testimony out of trial, and it was at a pretrial hearing exploring the issue that then-Judge Roy Barrera Jr. noticed the witness trembling.

The testimony showed that detectives brought Cantu's picture in photo lineups to Moreno three times.

First, Moreno said he didn't see the gunman's picture.

Months later, when a detective came back, the investigator brought a different lineup.

The second time all the faces were different except for Cantu's, which was shown in a new mug shot.

Again, Moreno didn't identify any of the photos as the shooter.

So the next day, another detective returned with the same lineup. The third time Moreno pointed to Cantu.

According to the police, Moreno had always recognized Cantu but was too afraid to say so.

One detective testified that Moreno avoided looking at Cantu's picture the first time it was shown to him.

Another even testified Moreno named Cantu but wouldn't point to his mug shot.

And when it was his turn to testify, Moreno corroborated their account — with one exception. He said he had never known Cantu's name until police provided it.

"Before you selected Ruben's picture, did the police ever tell you that they knew Ruben was the person who had shot you?" Cantu's attorney asked at the pretrial hearing.

"No," Moreno replied.

Then, the judge interrupted the hearing for a second time.

"Ask him if he's feeling OK," Barrera told the court translator to ask the trembling witness.

"I just feel nervous," Moreno replied.

Tainted lineups


Today, the photo displays shown to Moreno 20 years ago would violate San Antonio Police Department guidelines.
Using two different lineups that have one face in common — the suspect's face — is recognized as a clear signal of the investigation's focus.

San Antonio's protocols now say that if a suspect's photo is shown in more than one lineup, the subsequent displays should include at least two faces from the original array.

Experts say any suggestiveness in the lineups also would have been amplified each time Moreno was shown a photo of Cantu, who had a distinctive mole on the center of his forehead.

And coming back with the same lineup two days in a row would have intensified the message to Moreno.

"That's an incredible amount of pressure which says, 'You gave us an answer we're not accepting.'" said Gary L. Wells, an Iowa State University psychologist and a specialist in eyewitness identifications.

Detectives defended their actions at trial by saying Moreno's body language contradicted his claim that he didn't see the shooter in the lineups.

That judgment could have been clouded by their own confidence that Cantu was the killer, Wells said.

Had Moreno paused to look at Cantu's picture, instead of quickly passing it by, that too probably would have confirmed the detectives' suspicions.

In recent years several police departments, aware that eyewitness identifications can be easily contaminated, have taken steps to insulate their lineups from misinterpretation and the power of suggestion.

In Boston, for example, the Police Department has started to make sure the officers conducting lineups don't know which photo depicts the suspect.

In Texas, the governor's criminal justice policy council is looking at such procedures, but they've yet to be widely embraced in squad rooms around the state, said Roy S. Malpass, a founder of the Eyewitness Identification Research Laboratory at the University of Texas at El Paso.

In San Antonio, the Police Department is waiting for the district attorney's office to review Cantu's conviction.

For now, it simply remains a closed case.

"An official source has not come to the Police Department and said there was something inappropriate done in this case," department spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino said. "The only thing we've heard has been speculation by reporters."

Just as nervous


Juan Moreno may not have convinced everyone who heard him, but he didn't sound like he was speculating last month when he fielded questions from reporters.
Sitting in his lawyers' office, he seemed as nervous but certain as he did in court two decades ago — even if this time his answers bore little resemblance to his sworn testimony.

"None of the photos I was shown were the real culprit," he said in Spanish.

Moreno explained that he put the case out of his mind after the trial but decided to speak out publicly only recently when a Houston Chronicle reporter came to him.

Why he never came forward before Cantu's execution was never clearly addressed before Moreno's lawyer ended the 11-minute news conference.

Perhaps more than anything else, Moreno's silence outrages some observers while others appear willing to overlook it, including Cantu's mom.

Aurelia Cantu met Moreno weeks ago in a H-E-B parking lot.

They were introduced by Richard Reyna, a Houston-area private investigator who has helped uncover wrongful convictions and says he was the first to hear Moreno recant.

Aurelia Cantu shook hands with the man who helped send her son to his execution. Moreno told her he had felt awful for years. And he assured her that he had tried to tell police to look for a guy with curly hair, not her son.

The meeting lasted only a few minutes. But it didn't matter. Forgiveness came quickly.

"I'm not angry at him," Aurelia Cantu said. "The only thing I want is my son to be clean — to clear his name if he didn't do it."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail]

[CCADP]

Evidence hints at worngful death penalty execution


Ruben Cantu was executed for the 1984 murder of Pedro Gomez on Aug. 24,
1993. However, a recent Houston Chronicle article by Lise Olsen suggests
Texas may have executed the wrong man. Olsen tracked down Juan Moreno, the
sole eyewitness to the murder, whose testimony convicted Cantu. Now, more
than 20 years after the crime took place, Moreno has reversed his
statement. In a conversation with Olsen, Moreno stated that Cantu "was
innocent. It was a case of an innocent person being killed."

According to a police report of the crime, on Nov. 8, 1984, Moreno and
Gomez fell asleep in a in San Antonio, Texas, that house they were
renovating for Morenos wife. 2 "Latino" teens - one 13 or 14, the other
around 19 - awoke them by shining a floodlight in their faces. When Gomez
realized the teens were armed, he quickly drew his own rifle and shots
were fired. Gomez was shot 9 times by the older teen and left for dead.
Moreno was also shot 9 times, but managed to crawl outside to his pick-up
truck where the police found him at 11:58 p.m.

Detective James Herring of the San Antonio Police Department was assigned
to the case. During his first questioning, Moreno provided little
information besides identifying 2 Latino teens, 1 older than the other.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Herring did not speak Spanish and
Moreno spoke little English. Herring spread the word of the crime around
the local high schools, and a shop teacher at Cantu's high school told the
detective that kids were saying Cantu had committed the crime. Cantu, a
special-education student from a rough neighborhood of San Antonio, was
considered a local legend for his involvement in the "Grey Eagles" gang.
He was in an auto-theft ring and often drove stolen cars across the border
for a couple thousand dollars. The police had arrested each of Cantus
brothers. Cantu had also been tried for juvenile murder but had been
acquitted of the charges.

When Herring received word from the shop teacher, he returned to Moreno
with a lineup of photographs, including one of Cantu; Moreno did not
identify Cantu as the shooter.

On March 1, 1985 Cantu was involved in an altercation with off-duty San
Antonio police officer Joe De La Luz while at a local pool hall. According
to police reports, Cantu shot De La Luz 4 times, despite being
"unprovoked." Cantu later testified that he was threatened during a
dispute over a game. Charges were never brought against Cantu.

During the 2 days after the incident, 2 detectives questioned Moreno,
seeking an identification of Cantu. The 1st detective, Santos "Sam"
Balleza, recently told the Chronicle that he felt Moreno would never be
able to make a positive identification. The 2nd detective, Edward
Quantinilla, however, was able to produce a positive identification from
Moreno. Moreno then signed and dated the back of the Cantu photo. The
photo that was submitted into evidence during Cantu's trial, however, was
not dated and signed by Moreno. Cantu, 17, and David Garza, 15, were
arrested and prepared to stand trial.

According to Andrew Carruthers, Cantu's defense attorney, the entirety of
the prosecution's case rested on Moreno's testimony. Bruce Baxter, the
prosecutor in the trial, did not produce a murder weapon, a confession or
fingerprints placing Cantu and Garza at the crime scene.

"The prosecution's case was Juan Moreno sitting there with a quivering
hand unequivocally identifying Ruben Cantu," Carruthers said.

In the penalty phase of the trial, De La Luz testified that Cantu shot him
during the pool hall altercation. This, according to Carruthers, allowed
the prosecution to prove two important elements for seeking the death
penalty - the act was deliberate, and Cantu would be dangerous in the
future. The De La Luz shooting paired with Cantus previous trial for
juvenile murder proved to the jury that Cantu was a violent threat to
society, Carruthers said.

Since Cantus execution in 1993, both Moreno and Cantus co-defendant,
Garza, have presented information that proves Cantus innocence.

"The police were sure it was [Cantu] because he had hurt a police
officer," Moreno said in the Chronicle article. "They told me they were
certain it was him, and that's why I testified. That was bad to blame
someone that was not there."

Garza has since signed a sworn affidavit stating that Cantu was not the
man at the crime.

Stanford Law Prof. William Abrams, a current trial defender in death
penalty cases, said Moreno's recent remark must be viewed carefully.

"I would want to know more about the circumstances of this and why do we
believe this witness now when he recants," he said. "How do we know hes
credible now as opposed to then?"

Carruthers expressed similar apprehensions.

"Why didn't he come forward when Ruben was still alive and say this?" he
said. "When there are things like a witness who 20 years later changes his
statement, you can't correct that after the guys executed."

Sam Millsap Jr., who served as San Antonio's district attorney during the
Cantu case, expressed similar apprehensions about eyewitness testimony and
the death penalty. Millsap, who "was personally responsible for all
decisions relating to capital murder cases in terms of how they would be
prosecuted," now admits that following recent studies surrounding
eyewitness testimony, he would not have proceeded as he did in the Cantu
case.

"As far as I'm concerned you can't assume that eyewitness testimony is
going to be reliable," Millsap said. "If I had that decision to make over
again, 20 years later, and the question that was put to me was: Do we
prosecute somebody, seek the death penalty, based on the testimony of a
single eyewitness? I think the way I would resolve that question today is
I would say 'no.' The system simply does not protect the innocent."

Since 1976, 122 inmates have been exonerated from death row. However,
according to Abrams, the U.S. population is more concerned about the
capital punishment system than the actual killing of prisoners.

"I think people are more concerned about the process rather than the
ultimate issue," he said. "People are concerned that the process does not
facilitate the finding of truth and innocent people are being sentenced to
death and executed. I think in principle many - if not most - people still
believe the death penalty is appropriate, at least for examples of
terrorism or horribly massive types of killing."

(source: The Stanford Daily)

[CCADP]

Full probe of Cantu's innocence hits snags----Trio who may exonerate the
executed man say prosecutors are intimidating


Nearly 4 months after Bexar County prosecutors promised to vigorously
reinvestigate the questionable execution of Ruben Cantu, they have yet to
obtain full statements from the 3 witnesses who claim he was innocent.

All 3 say they want to cooperate but prosecutors' tactics have intimidated
them. The lone eyewitness against Cantu, who has now recanted, has been
threatened with prosecution for Cantu's death. Another said he has been
subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. And the 3rd says he balked after
being confronted with a lie detector test by investigators who refused to
identify themselves.

"I think they're just trying to cover up for what happened 20 years ago,"
said David Garza, one of the three men who say Cantu was wrongly executed.
"They just don't want to admit that they messed up."

Cliff Herberg, first assistant district attorney for Bexar County, did not
return repeated calls from the Houston Chronicle about the status of the
investigation. In the past, Susan Reed, elected district attorney, has
repeatedly promised that her office would conduct a thorough and objective
review.

But Robert Hoelscher, deputy director of the Texas Innocence Network, said
prosecutors have displayed an inappropriate bias since the investigation
began, both in private actions and public statements.

"The Ruben Cantu case is not about death penalty politics," Hoelscher
said. "It's about whether the state of Texas executed an innocent young
man. No other issue is relevant until you resolve that fundamental
question."

Cantu was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Pedro Gomez
during a house robbery on Nov. 9, 1984. Cantu, 17 at the time of the
crime, and Garza, his 15-year-old co-defendant, were convicted after the
lone surviving eyewitness, Juan Moreno, identified them as his attackers.

Moreno, then an illegal immigrant from Mexico, says he was under intense
pressure from police officers to falsely identify Cantu. Co-defendant
Garza has provided a sworn statement that claims another teen, not Cantu,
was with him that night. The 3rd man, Eloy Gonzales, swears Cantu was with
him in Waco - about 180 miles from the crime scene.

'Pretty serious stuff'

Prosecutors reopened the case and began re-examining old files in late
November after the Chronicle published a story about claims that Cantu,
executed in 1993, was innocent.

As the investigation began, Reed announced she would consider building a
case of murder by perjury against Moreno, the eyewitness. At the time, she
told the Chronicle: "A man has been executed because of that lie. That is
pretty serious stuff."

Moreno, now a San Antonio contractor, was 19 at the time of the crime and
barely survived the shooting. His story provides the most compelling
evidence for the claim that Texas executed the wrong man.

But no one from the Bexar County prosecutors' office has heard it from
him. Cynthia Orr, a San Antonio lawyer who represents Moreno, has said
that Reed's statements make it difficult for her client to cooperate. She
said it looks like prosecutors would rather silence Moreno than hear him
out.

Prosecutors recently subpoenaed Gonzales, the potential alibi witness, to
force him to testify before a grand jury, though he says he has offered to
cooperate. Gonzales, who has a criminal record, claims that Cantu was with
him in Waco stealing cars at the time of the murder. Gonzales' brother and
sister also told the Chronicle that Cantu was with them. Gonzales said he
thinks the subpoena was issued to shake him up.

"What (the D.A.) is trying to do is see if she can cover this up,"
Gonzales said. "But this is a serious offense. This is not something we'd
forget about."

The subpoena issued to Gonzales is the first signal that the District
Attorney's office plans to use a grand jury as part of its investigation.
The investigation is being led by Tamara Butler Strauch, a senior
assistant district attorney.

Former District Attorney Sam Millsap, who oversaw the Cantu case as chief
prosecutor, said prosecutors may need a grand jury to obtain sworn
statements.

"It makes sense to do this to get what everyone is saying today under
oath," he said. Millsap, who now opposes the death penalty, told the
Chronicle last year that he never should have sought a capital sentence in
the Cantu case because it was based almost entirely on a single witness,
the man who has since recanted.

Fred Rodriguez, a criminal defense attorney who defended Garza and later
served as district attorney, said he thought prosecutors were more likely
to use a grand jury to consider criminal charges against a target such as
Moreno, which would be a tough sell. "You're looking at a guy who got shot
nine times and who barely survived being indicted by murder for perjury?"
Rodriguez laughed. "Wow."

An investigator and an attorney from the District Attorney's Office did
obtain in December a partial interview with Garza, who is in prison in
Beaumont for an unrelated burglary.

But in an interview with the Chronicle at the Stiles Unit, Garza said he
refused to cooperate after district attorney's officials refused to
identify themselves and immediately pressed him to take a lie detector
test. Garza also refused to give them a sworn statement he has provided to
the Chronicle about the crime, which names another person as the murderer.

Herberg, in a December interview, said investigators were unimpressed with
Garza. He emphasized that Garza initially said he saw Cantu near the crime
scene, according to an old police report. Meanwhile, the man Garza accuses
now has denied involvement and passed a lie detector test, Herberg said.

'Beyond the extra mile'

The Cantu case has gained national attention because the acknowledged
execution of an innocent man could cast serious doubt on the capital
punishment system itself.

With such high stakes, Hoelscher, of the Texas Innocent Network said the
Bexar County officials should do everything they can to avoid the
impression they have made up their minds against Cantu - especially since
Reed had a small role in the case years ago.

As judge, Reed rejected Cantu's state appeal and later set his execution
date, though she has said those actions don't affect her ability to serve
as an impartial fact-finder now.

"This review is being conducted by the office that prosecuted Ruben
Cantu," Hoelscher said. "It must go well beyond the extra mile to show the
public that it is conducting a fair, thorough and impartial assessment."

*******************

[CCADP]

Clear Answers Needed: Death case calls for outside inquiry


The Bexar County district attorney's office has taken on the job of
finding out if it mistakenly sent alleged teen killer Ruben Cantu to the
death chamber in 1993 solely on the basis of eyewitness identification.

With due respect to otherwise competent legal professionals, it's a job
the district attorney's office isn't likely to complete in convincing
fashion. Consider:

Since beginning its inquiry nearly four months ago, the office has been
unable to secure full interviews from two crucial witnesses, according to
The Houston Chronicle, whose reporting on the case spurred the
investigation.

One of the 2, the sole eyewitness who now recants his testimony, has
clammed up after the district attorney threatened a "murder by perjury"
charge.

The district attorney herself, Susan Reed, is a former judge who denied an
appeal in the Cantu case and set his execution date.

At issue is justice for a slain construction worker, Pedro Gomez, who was
shot to death by a robber while sleeping overnight at a building site. A
second worker was badly wounded in the attack but survived to become the
trial's star witness. Then an illegal alien, the survivor now says he was
under police pressure to finger Mr. Cantu, a neighborhood tough.

A "murder by perjury" charge may technically be an option, but citing the
possibility has created a witness-intimidation appearance that clouds the
outcome of the investigation.

The Cantu case joins a growing list of eyewitness-only convictions brought
into question nationwide, mostly because DNA evidence has contradicted the
eye-witness acounts. The governor's own Criminal Justice Advisory Council
recommended in January that the state take advantage of growing research
into witness misidentification.

That won't help the cause of justice in the Cantu case, which could turn
out to be the state's first officially acknowledged death penalty error.

What could help the cause of justice here is a decision by the district
attorney to call in an outside special prosecutor with no past connection
with the case. The public deserves clean, clear answers to questions over
imposing the ultimate penalty.

(source: Editorial, Dallas Morning News)

[CCADP]

Did Texas execute an innocent man? DA is barrier to truth


We were willing to give Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed the
benefit of the doubt when we noted months ago that she had a conflict of
interest in her investigation of the Ruben Cantu case.

Cantu was executed in 1993 for robbing and killing a San Antonio
construction worker. Since then, information has been uncovered that
appears to exonerate Cantu. Reed's job is to find the truth, wherever the
investigation leads.

Instead, her hard-nosed tactics have intimidated witnesses, causing them
to clam up, according to news reports. Unless she changes course, the
truth won't be revealed. When Reed was a judge, she handled one of Cantu's
appeals and set one of his execution dates. That's a huge burden for Reed
to bear if Cantu was innocent. This investigation deserves an independent
examiner, not one so deeply involved in the outcome.

There is nothing the state can do to bring Cantu back. But if, as the
information now suggest, Cantu was executed for a crime he did not commit,
the state has a duty to clear his name and charge the real killer. It's
important to examine the Cantu case as a lesson to help avoid other
potentially fatal errors. The stakes are high because Cantu's execution
would be the 1st case to prove a wrongful execution since Texas resumed
capital punishment.

A Bexar County jury found Cantu guilty of robbing and killing Pedro Gomez
in 1984. The verdict was based on the testimony of a single eyewitness,
Juan Moreno, an illegal immigrant who was with Gomez and was seriously
wounded in the incident. No other witnesses and no physical evidence tied
Cantu to the crime.

The Bexar County prosecutor's version of the facts fell apart months ago,
when Moreno recanted his testimony. He apologized to Cantu's mother,
saying years of guilt had taken their toll. He told the Houston Chronicle
that Cantu was never at the scene of the crime, and that he felt pressured
by police to finger Cantu.

Cantu was no angel. He had a record and a history with police. Cantu's
convicted accomplice, David Garza, also recently named another man as the
killer. He, too, said Cantu wasn't there. If these witnesses are right,
Texas executed an innocent man.

Those witnesses are the key to learning the truth, but they aren't
talking.

Reed has said that if she determines that Moreno is telling the truth, he
committed a deadly kind of perjury that could be prosecuted as murder.
Perhaps her goal is to go after Moreno for lying in a situation that
ultimately led prosecutors to seek the death penalty. Reed has a
reputation for being tough, but she is smart enough to know that faced
with prosecution and possible imprisonment, many people would refuse to
cooperate. Other witnesses also distrust Reed's motives and see them as
efforts to deflect blame. So there has been little progress after 4 months
of investigation.

In December, we urged Gov. Rick Perry to direct his Criminal Justice
Advisory Committee to look into the case. We said then that it was
doubtful that Reed could mount a vigorous and unbiased investigation,
given her prior involvement in the case.

Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said this week that the governor's advisory
committee isn't set up for individual cases, but rather to "look at
broader issues in the criminal justice arena." This case does raise
broader issues, and we repeat our call to the governor.

Texas needs answers, and it doesn't look as if the Bexar prosecutor can
get them. In the name of justice, Reed should bow out and an independent
investigator should take over.

(source: Editorial, Austin American-Statesman)