吃瓜大本营

Billy Wayne Coble was convicted of a Texas triple homicide in 1989. On Thursday, he is scheduled for execution.

A former ACLU client, Coble鈥檚 story was not a happy one before he found himself on death row. He was a Vietnam veteran who had been raised by a mother who was institutionalized for mental illness and by a father debilitated by alcoholism. But if Coble鈥檚 execution goes forward, he will be killed not for who he is or for what he鈥檚 been convicted of, but because of the testimonies of so-called 鈥渆xperts鈥� whose testimony can be summed up in two words: unreliable junk.

Years after Coble was initially sentenced to death in 1990, an appellate court in 2007 threw out that death sentence because the trial judge had erred in instructing the sentencing jury. At Coble鈥檚 2008 re-sentencing trial, his behavior in prison between 1990 and 2007 posed a challenge to the state鈥檚 claim that, as required for a Texas death sentence, Coble would be a danger to other prison staff and prisoners if not executed.

As the court later him, Coble 鈥渄id not have a single disciplinary report for the eighteen years he had been on death row.鈥� Rather than posing a threat, Coble had instead become known for helping both staff and fellow prisoners alike.

To meet Texas鈥檚 future-danger requirement, which would require checking and countering his years of good behavior, the state鈥檚 first move was to present testimony from Dr. Richard Coons, a psychiatrist who, over the years, had claimed Texas prisoners would be dangerous to those around them if not executed. It was no surprise that he did the same in Coble鈥檚 case.

But, when scrutinized, it鈥檚 clear that Coons鈥� predictions more closely resembled backroom fortune telling than science.

As Coons has now admitted, his testimony, in both Coble鈥檚 and previous capital trials, was not based on any peer-reviewed literature, field of study, or empirical research. Rather he himself admits, as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted in 2010, to doing 鈥溾�榠t his way鈥� with his own methodology and has never gone back to see whether his prior predictions of future dangerousness have, in fact, been accurate.鈥� Coons was a fraud, plying his trade to help Texas prosecutors secure death sentences.

Texas鈥檚 second move to secure Coble鈥檚 death sentence was to present A.P. Merillat, a prison investigator, as yet another bona fide 鈥渆xpert.鈥�

For Texas prosecutors, Merillat played a similar role to that of Coons: to give juries a reason to believe a prisoner must be executed to prevent future danger to those around him. Merillat did so for years by enthralling juries with horror stories of prison violence. He also swayed juries by pointing out supposed loopholes that he claimed provided prisoners opportunities to commit violence if sentenced to life imprisonment instead of death.

But Merillat has also been proven a fraud.

In a pair of separate appeals we litigated on behalf of our clients in 2010 and in 2012, Texas鈥檚 highest court found Merillat鈥檚 claims in each case demonstrably false. Merillat falsely conjured relaxed security restraints our clients would have enjoyed if not sentenced to death, restraints that would make letting them live more dangerous.

When Coble鈥檚 death sentence was appealed in 2010, Texas鈥檚 highest court agreed that Coon鈥檚 predictions were unscientific .

But, in a curious twist, the court cited a technicality to uphold Coble鈥檚 death sentence. It found that the erroneously admitted testimony was harmless. It was then that we entered the case, assisting Coble and his attorneys by arguing for the U.S. Supreme Court to take his case. Regrettably, we were unsuccessful.

Coble has since continued to fight in lower courts to overturn his death sentence, which still stands despite the fact that the state of Texas has long since given up defending the merits of Coons or Merillat. A federal appellate court recently them, 鈥渢wo problematic witnesses.鈥� It observed, of Coble鈥檚 trial, 鈥渢hat Coons鈥� testimony was unreliable and should have been excluded鈥� and that 鈥渢he State does not dispute that parts of Merillat鈥檚 testimony were fabricated.鈥�

Yet the federal court allowed Coble鈥檚 death sentence to stand, again based on technicalities. It agreed with the theory that Coons鈥� testimony was harmless, and it cited technical failures by Coble鈥檚 lawyers to raise challenges to Merillat鈥檚 testimony using the correct, if byzantine, procedures.

Since the court findings repudiating them in 2010 and 2012, neither Coons nor Merillat has appeared as experts for Texas prosecutors. Simultaneously the number of new death sentences in Texas has continued to plummet. Yet Coble鈥檚 execution remains stubbornly and glaringly on track over technicalities, despite the admittedly 鈥減roblematic鈥� testimony used to make the state鈥檚 case for death.

That Coble will be executed on such discredited testimony is unconscionable. The courts鈥� recognition that Coons was trafficking in junk science and Merillat in fabrications may have come too late to save Coble鈥檚 life. But the example of his case already shows all who are willing to look why the death penalty is never justice, and why it should be abolished once and for all.