The girl sitting within the chair is Jill Barganier. It’s 1998. And she or he’s a key witness as police examine the deadly capturing of her neighbor, Elizabeth Black. Pay attention fastidiously as Jill describes what she noticed. Jill says the 2 killers have been white, slim, and had lengthy, darkish hair, like this. However the police have an issue. Jill’s description doesn’t resemble one among their most important suspects. In truth, Jill failed to select him out of a lineup. Not solely that, there’s no bodily proof linking him to the homicide, no bullets, no blood, no DNA. Oh, and another person confessed to the homicide. However 25 years later, Charles Don Flores nonetheless sits on dying row in Texas, awaiting his execution. He says it’s an injustice that highlights the insanity of the dying penalty and the pressing case for its abolition. “I’m on dying row. They wish to kill me. The extra time that goes by, the nearer that they’re getting.” And it’s all due to what’s about to occur on this room. “F.B.I. brokers have been chasing 28-year-old Charles Don Flores when he crashed into one other automobile.” “I’m the primary one to say to anyone that I wasn’t an angel after I was free. There are issues that I’ve performed earlier than that I’m actually ashamed of. However I didn’t commit this crime. I didn’t kill Mrs. Black.” The central proof used in opposition to Charles Don Flores in court docket: the eyewitness testimony of Jill Barganier. She initially described seeing two white males with lengthy hair, medium construct. “I’m not medium construct. I’m six foot tall. I’ve all the time had brief hair. And I’ve all the time worn glasses. And none of this stuff have been talked about in her authentic description, to not point out the truth that I’m not white. I’m Latino. I’m Mexican American.” However by the point of his trial, Jill’s testimony had modified. “She abruptly stated that she might establish me.” You’re about to see why. Over the course of an hour, the officer, simply off to the precise of the display screen, makes an attempt to hypnotize Jill. What you’re seeing has a reputation: investigative hypnosis. “It’s primarily voodoo. It’s loopy.” For many years, scientists believed that below hypnosis, individuals might recall distant occasions with vivid readability. However since 1999, it’s been largely discredited. That’s why greater than half the states within the nation have banned or restricted its use in court docket. And now even Texas has banned it, too. “Sadly, it’s not retroactive, so it doesn’t apply to me. It doesn’t assist me.” Charles and his authorized crew are sure. With out Jill’s hypnosis-tainted testimony, the case in opposition to him crumbles. No different proof places him on the scene of the crime. All Charles desires from the state is a good trial based mostly on proof, not discredited science. In any case, his life is on the road. “Give me a good shot. Take a look at my case pretty.” So who killed Elizabeth Black? Jill Barganier instructed officers she noticed two males enter the sufferer’s home that day. She had no drawback figuring out the motive force, an acquaintance of Flores named Richard Childs. He struck a cope with prosecutors, confessed to the homicide, and served lower than half his sentence. However Charles? He’s paid a steep worth for insisting on his innocence. Convicted as an confederate below the Texas Regulation of Events, he stays on dying row. And until authorities grant him a reprieve, he’ll be executed. The scientifically flawed testimony, the shortage of bodily proof or DNA linking him to the crime with even one iota of doubt — it’s an injustice. And that’s the unimaginable ethical duty positioned on those that impose the dying penalty: absolute certainty. “It’s a must to be truthful earlier than you are taking somebody’s life. And that’s the evil of the dying penalty. I don’t wish to die. But when that’s the way it ends, properly, I’m able to go. I’m not afraid to die. I’ve by no means been afraid to die.”
