So in a car in Albuquerque last Wednesday morning, Bush focused intently on the case. He’d tentatively signed off on it 13 days before–but only as one of four cases in a two-hour briefing during a busy day at home for “state business.” Now he read the faxes from his counsel, Margaret Wilson. He spoke to her by mobile phone, hashed things out with Hughes and made his call: yes, new DNA technology might well cast doubt on McGinn’s guilt. Bush would tell the press that he was “inclined” to give a reprieve. The story made headlines, and McGinn was given a stay the next day.
The episode was revealing: a real-time example of Bush’s leadership style. He sets and clings to broad goals, in this case “swift and just” execution of death-row inmates. He relies heavily on trusted aides–more than ever since he is holding one job while running for another. He has a visceral feel for the media and their discontents, and jumps ahead to the next safe spot.
Reviewing death-penalty cases, Bush says, is his “most profound” duty as governor, his “worst nightmare” the death of an innocent convict. But while executions are practically an industry in Texas, Bush doesn’t think he needs to scrutinize the innards of the system he oversees. In a NEWSWEEK interview last week he didn’t know how much the state pays attorneys to represent defendants on appeal–a figure reform groups have loudly complained is far too low. Nor did Bush think he should assume the likelihood of error or injustice. “I trust the juries,” he said. He denied that the sheer volume of executions raised the risk of a nightmare mistake. “We take lots of time on these cases,” he said. “I’m talking about my staff, the attorney general’s office and me.”
But in Bush’s intensely personal world, decision making is less about judging the facts than reading people. He asks his aides blunt questions and scrutinizes them for signs of uncertainty. It seems there were none in the mansion meeting of May 18, though reform advocates had been agitating about the case. It was press coverage–and the resultant involvement of DNA experts–that forced Bush’s hand.
Bush denies that politics drove his decision–though 59 percent of voters in the thought so. He also claimed not to care that the likes of well-known DNA expert Barry Scheck had descended on Texas. “With all due respect to Mr. Scheck, he had nothing to do with my decision,” Bush said. “People like to read all kinds of motives into these things, and I understand that. These death-penalty cases stir emotions. But all I ever ask are two questions: is there doubt about guilt based on the evidence, and did the defendant have full access? In this case, there was doubt.” But what about the next batch, and the one after that? After last week, chances are, the briefings will run a little longer.
