Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428
Main number: 512-463-2000
Website email contact form/ http://www.governor.state.tx.
or use the online letter signing page set up by the Innocence Project
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
All the details of the case are available on the website, however, here are some of the points you can raise:
Hank was sentenced to die on the basis of a perjured testimony and circumstancial evidence.
The accusation theory relied on that one witness, who later recanted and explained how she was threatened to make a false statement to the police and give a deposition at trial which was based on a script supplied by the district attorney's office.
Both the State's star witnesses (Andrea Reed & Howard Mitchell) have testified that they believe Hank to be innocent.
The little forensic analysis done before his trial excluded him as the killer.
The additional and minimum testing done during his post conviction appeals excluded him too.
The available scientific evidence proves his physical incapacitation at the time of the crime.
The important quantity of evidence remaining to be tested is essential to reveal the truth about his innocence.
His motions for DNA testing have been denied although he has always offered to pay for the costs.
The state of Texas has a very poor record in terms of wrongful convictions and DNA exonerations.
The interest of justice is to find out the truth and to not execute an innocent.
The state is withholding the untested evidence that can prove Hank's innocence.
All three of the previous D.A.s have publicly stated that they believe the evidence needs to be tested.
The D.A. has admitted in Ch 64 DNA pleadings that the evidence is in a condition making testing possible, that the chain of custody has been maintained, that the evidence is capable of providing a probative result and idendity is an issue in Hank's case.
Texas should not execute a man it does not know for a fact to be guilty. After Andrea Reed's recantation, according to the state own's experts, the remaining evidence does nothing to prove guilt at all.
The A.G has stated through his spokesman that it would violate the constitution to murder someone who is innocent - that has got to apply equally to someone they do not know for a fact to be guilty.