Texas Must Honor Its Own Laws Protecting Innocent Death Row Inmates from Wrongful Execution
Source: Austin Sarat. "Texas wants to put an innocent man to death. Will the Supreme Court stop it?." February 13, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
Texas has laws that let death row inmates try to prove they're innocent, but the state is blocking Charles Flores from using these laws even though he was convicted based on questionable evidence. The Supreme Court should force Texas to follow its own rules and give Flores a fair chance to prove his innocence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court should require Texas to follow its own laws that allow death row inmates to prove their innocence, specifically in the case of Charles Flores
Premises
- Charles Flores was convicted based primarily on eyewitness testimony obtained through investigative hypnosis, which Texas now recognizes as unreliable evidence
- Texas has enacted laws specifically designed to protect innocent people from wrongful execution by allowing prisoners to file writs of habeas corpus to present evidence of innocence
- Texas courts are arbitrarily blocking Flores from using these state-created protections without explanation, effectively nullifying the laws
- The eyewitness testimony against Flores was fundamentally flawed - the witness initially described white men with long hair, created composite sketches that looked nothing like Flores, and failed to identify him in photo arrays
- Due process requires that when a state creates legal rights, it cannot deny individuals those rights without proper procedural protections
- Flores has made a substantial threshold showing of actual innocence that deserves a hearing under Texas's own legal framework
Assumptions
- State laws creating rights for death row inmates create constitutionally protected liberty interests
- Investigative hypnosis produces unreliable testimony that can lead to wrongful convictions
- Courts have an obligation to follow established legal procedures rather than making arbitrary decisions
- The risk of executing an innocent person outweighs administrative convenience or finality concerns