Sunday, October 26, 1997

Appeals court should justify puzzling move

In 17th century England, John Milton wrote the epic poem Paradise Lost to "justify the ways of God to men." If Milton were around now, perhaps he could explain why Texas' highest criminal court refused to grant Abilenian Billy Lynn Stevens a new trial.

Stevens is serving a 75-year prison sentence for aggravated sexual assault because eight years ago Stevens' 5-year-old son claimed his father molested him. Today, however, the 13-year-old son insists -- insists -- he lied and wrongly accused his father in 1989 because he feared the true molester, his then-stepfather, would harm him and his family. And the son said so in a hearing in August in state District Judge Billy John Edwards' Abilene courtroom.

Edwards found the boy's testimony credible and recommended the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals order a new trial for Stevens, which sounds like an eminently reasonable course of action. Edwards is a thoughtful, cautious, conscientious judge, and the Court of Criminal Appeals asked for his opinion, which was given after careful consideration. The appeals court is in the habit of deferring to the opinion of the trial judge who actually listened to the testimony. And a year ago the same court granted the request of another Texas inmate under nearly identical circumstances.

But inexplicably, the court on Wednesday turned Stevens' appeal down flat -- and offered absolutely no reason for doing so.

This mystifying decision does not serve the cause of justice. If an apparently innocent man's sole accuser recants, what else does he have to do to clear himself? If legal precedence can be so easily ignored, what kind of mixed message does that send to our law enforcement officials throughout the state who are supposed to apply consistent standards? If the reliability of district judges can be tossed aside in so cavalier a manner, then how credible is the structure of our whole criminal justice system? And is the real criminal in this case going unpunished?

Plus, what about the torment this young boy must be enduring? A 5-year-old can surely be forgiven his confused and fearful actions because he is not fully cognizant of all the consequences. But by the age of 13, he is becoming painfully aware of the chain of events generated by his testimony as a 5-year-old.

So the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is keeping an apparently innocent man in jail and consigning a teen-ager's conscience to a living hell on Earth. They deserve, at the very least, an explanation. But even the great Milton would have a hard time justifying this one.