In less than 15 minutes, the state of Alabama will execute a man, Darrell Grayson, who was convicted of a terrible crime, unless Governor Bob Riley intercedes.
DNA tests were not available when the crime was committed 27 years ago. Tests are available now, and Darrell Grayson has been asking for one since 2002.
For you to delay an execution long enough to have a DNA test conducted, what likelihood would have to exist in your mind that the DNA is not Darrell Grayson’s? One in two? You’d conduct the test if the odds were one in two. One in hundred? One in a million? Why not?
Before the state takes the life of a human being, doesn’t the state want absolute certainty in the matter? If Troy King, Bob Riley, et al, already have absolute certainty that the right man has been convicted, what is the harm of having the test conducted before the state takes a man’s life? What is the downside?
As The Birmingham News pointed out, “Governors in other states have blocked executions for DNA testing - including Jeb Bush in Florida and George W. Bush in Texas.”
The Tuscaloosa News also wants the governor to intervene:
The question involving Grayson has a relatively easy answer, one that common sense should dictate. Yet Alabama does not have a post-conviction DNA law. That means that after a person is convicted, there is no procedure for a DNA test. Grayson has requested a DNA test since 2002 to no avail.
That’s just one of the concerns about the way our state administers the death penalty.
Will Governor Riley intercede to allow for a DNA test? The word heard here is that he won’t. I hope the word is wrong.
Update: Darrell Grayson pronounced dead at 6:16 p.m.
Share This