If any principle seems to guide the Texas legal system, it seems to be "establish a Catch-22 wherever possible." The latest example can be seen in Skinner v. Switzer, a case in which Texas refused an individual convicted of a capital crime access to DNA evidence from the case, because ... he had not provided sufficient evidence of his innocence. (More background here: 1, 2, 3.) Since state-established Catch-22s are not in fact consistent with due process of law, Skinner sued in federal court, arguing that he had constitutional right to access the DNA evidence. Skinner's suit was denied by the lower federal courts on a technicality: They claimed that Skinner did not have a claim under §1983, which authorizes a person to sue when they have been deprived of federal rights, but would have to seek a remedy through a habeas corpus petition.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court today reversed the lower courts and allowed Skinner's lawsuit to proceed. A 6-3 Court, through Ginsburg, argued that the federal courts did have jurisdiction under §1983. (Thomas, joined by Alito and Kennedy, agreed with the Kafkaesque logic of the lower courts.) The Court did not address Skinner's claim on the merits, but hopefully the federal courts will not allow this manifest injustice to stand. Texas's refusal to allow Skinner access to potentially exculpatory evidence is an excellent example of why state criminal justice systems need to be subject to robust federal supervision.
