Strange Turn in Execution of Possibly Innocent Texas Man
by Radley BalkoMore odd developments in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, the Texas man executed in 2004 for killing his three daughters by intentionally setting fire to his own house. Nine arson experts have since come forward to denounce the testimony of the forensic arson specialists who testified at Willingham's trial. The latest was commissioned by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, a committee created by the state's legislature to ensure the integrity of forensic evidence presented in court. That report came out at about the same time as an article in the New Yorker presenting a strong case for Willingham's innocence.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry then came under fire earlier this month by refusing to reappoint three members of the Forensic Science Commission at a critical point in its investigation of the Willingham case. Perry had been urged by the committee members and others to reappoint the members so as not to disrupt the Willingham investigation. The investigation is now on hold.
Perry has since replaced a fourth member of the commission. The ousted members are now talking about the pressure Perry's administration put on them to bury any evidence calling Willingham's guilt into doubt.
From the Houston Chronicle:
The former two-term chairman [of the Forensic Science Commission], Sam Bassett, told the Chronicle that Perry's attorneys suggested the hiring of a nationally known fire expert was a “waste of state money.”
During one conversation, Bassett said, Perry's then-General Counsel David Cabrales told him that the panel's probe of Willingham's case and that of a wrongly convicted El Paso man weren't the kinds of investigations “contemplated by the statute.” Later, Bassett recalled, Cabrales suggested the panel be more forward-looking rather than looking back at older cases.
As the Chronicle article points out, the statute establishing the commission clearly states that the commission is empowered to look at forensic malfeasance in old cases.
It gets even stranger. The Texas blog Dog Canyon reports that Gov. Perry's general counsel at the time of Willingham's execution was himself indicted in an arson case in 2008. David Medina was able to get the indictment dismissed after questioning the judgment of the arson investigators for failing to look at possible causes of the fire other than arson—precisely the criticism leveled at investigators in the Willingham case. The Harris County District Attorney's refusal to bring charges against Medina moved two members of the grand jury that indicted him to speak out publicly against the decision. Medina now sits on the Texas Supreme Court. Perry appointed him to that position in 2004.
It's unclear what role Medina played in Perry's decision to let Willingham be executed. Perry won't release any records related to his administration's handling of the case. Medina's own indictment came a few years after Willingham's execution.
Perry continues to defend Willingham's execution. This week, he described the latest of the nine forensic arson specialist to condemn the evidence presented at Willingham's trial as "politically driven." He also called Willingham a "monster" noting that Willingham was profane, was accused of beating his wife, and was hated even by his own defense attorney.
Meanwhile, at least one juror who voted to convict Willingham now says she's having doubts about her decision.
Strange Turn in Execution of Possibly Innocent Texas Man
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
now this is unusual
These maneuverings by the governor do seem odd. Why should he care if the state executes a few innocent people... it is a known fact that innocent men are executed.
- MrBook
October 19, 2009 5:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The New Yorker Article
I read the New Yorker article a month or so ago. In an environment where most of what the media reports is pure garbage, it has to be one of the best pieces of investigative journalism I've ever seen. It's long, so prepare to not have anything else to do when you start it, as you won't be able to put it down.
Overall, I'm not opposed to the death penalty . The typical criminal that ends up on death row deserves to be there. With that said, it's my view the death penalty should be abolished because the system is so hopelessly broken it simply doesn't work. Unfortunately, abolishing the death penalty won't do anything to fix the broken system.
Consider this: A death penalty case provides what according to theory should be the highest level of checks and balances our justice system offers. It goes far beyond the remedies available to those who receive a life sentence. In other words, had Willingham simply received a life sentence, which seems certain if the death penalty had not been imposed, it is certain he would have spent the rest of his life in prison. What's worse, spending the rest of your life in prison for a crime you didn't commit, or being put to death for a crime you didn't commit? Either way, your life is destroyed. It could be argued the life sentence is actually the harsher penalty.
Whatever else can be said about the Willingham case, as to his guilt or innocence, I don't believe there's any doubt he was entitled to a new trial. That is really the point where the system is most flawed. Our Country's founders clearly recognized the clear and present danger of arbitrary judicial decisions.
Avoiding a whimsically applied system of justice was the sole purpose of a right to trial by jury. The problem is that if a judge allows the kind of trial likely to result in a wrong decision by a jury, the case is then delivered exclusively into the hands of those our founders considered to be the gravest threat to our rights and liberties - the judges. The last line of defense against tyranny, the justice system, becomes the ultimate source of tyranny. Furthermore, the only qualification required to be a judge is that one must first be an attorney. So, after many years of professional experience where the order of the day is to abandon any last vestage of morals as to right and wrong, one may be handed virtually unlimited power to abuse the system, under circumstances where we the people are utterly without recourse to prevent abuse.
- Don Earl
October 19, 2009 5:42PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
As usual, well said.
I have had a debate about the merits of the capital punishment system and in that debate the topic of abolishing the death penalty came up.
I disagreed then and I still remain unconvinced that abolishment will fix what ails the process. I want to ask your opinion on something.
Do you agree or disagree that incorporating the grand jury clause of the 5th amendment into the 14th amendment, so that it applies to the states, would make a sizable impact in the amount of wrongly executed convicts?
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 7:38PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Constitutional questions
Personally, pretty much across the board, my view is the litteral meaning of the Constitution, as it was originally implemented, is the last and only word on how cases involving Constitutional questions should be settled. The fifth says a grand jury is required in order to obtain an indictment.
In fact, according to theory, a grand jury can hand down an indictment in the absence of a prosecutor. For example, if there was evidence adequate to indict a corrupt government official, citizens could convene a grand jury and ultimately press criminal charges.
IMO, the 14th isn't necessary. The plain language of the 5th says this is the highest law of the land and is not optional. Like the rest of them, both have been gutted to the point of being nearly meaningless. About the last thing you want to tell a judge these days is that what is being done is unconstitutional. It's about as well received as telling a child molestor he shouldn't molest children . Judges and child molestors resent being told they shouldn't do want they know they aren't supposed to do.
That aside, while I'm not completely convinced grand juries would prevent wrongful prosecutions, to the extent that check in the system is required to be in place, it should be in place.
A prosecutor able to get a conviction in the Willingham case, could probably get an indictment from a grand jury. That's at least part of the problem. Cases are decided on who has the best or worst attorney, rather than on who's right and who's wrong. Still, I'd trust a grand jury to determine whether or not a prosecutor is grand standing vs. actually having a real case, before I'd trust a prosecutor and a judge to make the call.
I'd lean toward the idea wrongful convictions are few and far between. At the same time, I believe even one is too many. It's not an easy moral question. Between the possibility of letting a criminal off the hook, and punishing an innocent man, I'd say the latter is the greater evil, which also appears to be the view of the Constitution's authors. If Willingham was truly innocent, what was done to him in our names is about as terrible as anything I can imagine. Even if he was not innocent, the circumstances of the case are such that just about anyone, as a result of ill fortune, could be prosecuted and found guilty under similar circumstances.
- Don Earl
October 19, 2009 9:19PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks for the reply.
I appreciate it.
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 9:29PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.