[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S18927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       EXECUTION OF THE INNOCENT

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to draw my colleagues' 
attention to a December 4 editorial in the Washington Post, ``Execution 
of the Innocent,'' which profiles the case of Rolando Cruz.
  Rolando Cruz was found guilty of raping and killing 10-year-old 
Jeanie Nicarico of Naperville, IL, in 1983. Even though there was no 
physical evidence nor motive, and another man confessed to the killing 
shortly after Mr. Cruz's conviction, two juries voted for the death 
penalty based on testimony from fellow prisoners and police who claimed 
he had confessed to them. The prisoners' stories have now all been 
discredited, the policemen's supervisor recently admitted that he was 
in Florida at the time he claimed he had been told about Mr. Cruz's 
confession, and recent DNA tests exonerate Mr. Cruz and point to the 
man who confessed many years ago.
  It took 11 years for the truth in this case to come out. The Senate 
has passed habeas corpus reform which will severely restrict an 
inmate's ability to appeal a conviction, and has recently voted to 
eliminate funding for the post-conviction defender organizations which 
provide competent counsel to death row inmates. These measures will 
simply exacerbate the inherent problem with the death penalty: Innocent 
people are put to death.
  Our system is comprised of human beings, and human beings, whether by 
malice or oversight, have been known to be wrong. Rolando Cruz's case 
is a stark example of this reality. The death penalty is already 
reserved for people of modest means who cannot afford the best 
representation. It is already disproportionately applied to black 
people. Congress' rush to be tough on crime will simply make it even 
more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the high standards of 
justice which are the foundation of our Nation. And to put it plainly: 
More innocent people will be put to death.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the editorial be 
printed in the Record.
  The editorial follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Dec. 4, 1995]

                       Execution of the Innocent

       The death penalty has broad support in this country, and 
     those who argue against it on moral grounds aren't making 
     much headway. But even the most fervid supporters of capital 
     punishment must have their doubts when it is revealed that 
     innocent people have been convicted of murder and sentenced 
     to be executed. This happens more frequently than one might 
     think. And the increasing availability of DNA technology to 
     prove innocence probably means that these last-minute saves 
     will become more common.
       The most recent of these cases concerns Rolando Cruz, twice 
     convicted by juries of the 1983 rape and murder of 10-year-
     old Jeanine Nicarico in Naperville, ILL. Mr. Cruz was 
     arrested with two others--charges against one have been 
     dropped and the other is awaiting his third trial--on 
     extremely thin evidence. He and his codefendants maintained 
     their innocence throughout. There was no physical evidence to 
     tie them to the crime, and no motive was alleged by the 
     prosecution. But successive juries convicted on the basis of 
     testimony from other prisoners that he had confessed to them. 
     These stories were changed, revoked or attacked on grounds of 
     credibility.
       More persuasive was testimony from two police officers that 
     Mr. Cruz had revealed to them a dream he had had, which 
     contained details of the crime that only a killer would know. 
     Nothing was said or written about this alleged dream for 18 
     months, and the story appeared only two weeks before the 
     first trial. Last month, after years of litigation and two 
     death sentences, the policemen's supervisor recanted 
     testimony that they had told him of the dream, and confessed 
     that he had been in Florida at the time and could not have 
     had this conversation.
       Even more compelling is the fact that shortly after the 
     first conviction another man was arrested in the same area 
     who confessed to two rape-killings and numerous assaults, and 
     to the killing of the child for which Mr. Cruz had been 
     convicted. The prosecutors stubbornly refused to believe him, 
     but recent DNA tests exonerate Mr. Cruz and point to this 
     other man.
       Rolando Cruz spent the years between his 21st and his 32nd 
     birthdays on death row. At his third trial, the judge 
     bitterly criticized the police, the impeached witnesses at 
     the first two trials and the quality of the prosecution's 
     case. He directed a verdict of not guilty even before the 
     defense had presented its case. This prosecution was so 
     egregious that the Justice Department this week directed the 
     FBI to look into possible violations of Mr. Cruz's civil 
     rights. Those who argue that appeals should be curtailed and 
     that executions should become routine should consider Rolando 
     Cruz and the injustice that was visited on him as well as the 
     one he narrowly escaped.

                          ____________________