Maurice Chamas

Most prisoners on death row are not pursuing innocence claims.

David Wood is rare in that sense.

His lawyers aren't arguing about whether he should die for his crimes, but about whether he committed them at all.

An argument that big, that fundamental, tends to lock people into their corners.

He's either a serial killer or an innocent man.

It makes it tougher to honestly assess some of the more basic questions I have about David Wood.

What kind of person is he?

And more to the point, what exactly is he capable of?

The last time anyone seriously took up those questions was 33 years ago at his capital murder trial during what's called the penalty phase.

After a jury found David Wood guilty, they had to come back to court to decide his punishment.

In Texas, juries have to consider whether or not the defendant poses a future threat to society.

In this phase of the trial, the jury isn't just judging the crime anymore.

They're judging the person.

And in David's case, they had to do a risk assessment.

Back then, life in prison without parole wasn't an option in Texas.

So if the jury thought David Wood might kill again, the only surefire way to prevent it was to execute him.

Prosecutors made the argument for the death penalty by bringing up David Wood's past crimes.

They had a lot to work with.

Before the desert murders, he had three rape convictions, another conviction of indecency with a 12-year-old girl, and then, on top of that, three more women and girls had made accusations against him too, ranging from attempted kidnapping to rape.

The story the prosecution told the jury was clear.