The guilt or innocence of Duane Buck, 53 is not in issue and the appellant is not denying he committed the capital crimes he was convicted of. On July 30, 1995, Buck broke into the home his ex-girlfriend. He shot and killed a man in the house whom he believed was sleeping with his ex-girlfriend. He then chased the woman who ran out of the house and shot her in front of her children as she begged for her life. Buck also shot his stepsister who survived a bullet wound to the chest.
Police described Buck after the incident as “upbeat and laughing.” Police also said Buck told them, “the bitch got what she deserved.”
None of this is in issue before the Supreme Court. But during the penalty phase of the trial, Buck’s own lawyer called psychologist Walter Quijano as an expert witness. Quijano testified that according to statistics, Buck was more likely to commit violent crimes in the future because he is black. Obviously not quite believing what the psychologist said, the prosecutor drove the point home on cross examination.
Under Texas law, a jury must unanimously agree a defendant poses a future danger in order to sentence that person to death. Although the jury had no difficulty finding Buck guilty of his crimes, it took them more than two days to decide the sentence. During those two days, they sent four notes to the judge. The jury then came back with the sentence of death.
In a later jailhouse interview Buck said he was surprised no one, especially his own lawyer, objected to the testimony. The inmate described Quijano’s testimony as saying he had to die because he was black.
Buck lost all appeals that went through the Texas courts. But his case was not the only one where Quijano had given the same evidence that blacks are more prone to commit violent acts. One of these cases is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 2000, then-attorney general of Texas, John Cornyn, now a U.S. senator, agreed the constitutional rights of blacks who were sentenced to death after similar testimony from Quijano were breached. Cornyn agreed the state would re-sentence seven such individuals. But Buck was not included in the list, presumably because the evidence was called by his own lawyer.
In addition to arguing evidence of race should not have been put before the jury, Buck’s current lawyers will argue the ineffectiveness of counsel because it was Buck’s lawyers who injected race into the evidence.
Kathryn Kase, of the Texas Defender Service, said the Supreme Court must send a clear message racial prejudice has no place in the criminal justice system.
The state of Texas will argue that because of the brutal nature of the crimes and Buck’s lack of remorse for the killings, there is no substantial likelihood the jury would have reached a different decision had the evidence on race not be heard. The state will also argue there was evidence at trial that the chance Buck would commit further dangerous crimes was low despite the evidence blacks are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes in the future.
The Supreme Court is not likely to render a decision until June.
