Lowest common denominator

Rizana Nafeek was a 17-year-old from Sri Lanka who took a job as a nanny in Saudi Arabia back in 2005. Shortly after she took the job, the four-month-old child she was in charge of watching was found dead. Ms. Nafeek was accused of killing the baby.

While in custody she confessed to the crime. After she was convicted, Ms. Nafeek claimed that she was coerced into confessing and that she was denied the assistance of counsel. As a result of the conviction, Ms. Nafeek was sentenced to death.

Despite protestations from Ms. Nafeek's parents and from the Sri Lankan government, the Saudis carried out the beheading of Ms. Nafeek earlier this month. Her hands were tied behind her back. She was forced to kneel over a block. Her head was cut off with a sword.

The death of Ms. Nafeek didn't bring back the dead child. The hole in the parents' lives didn't just disappear. Now another family has lost their child. And they lost her to a system with no accountability.

Another family is also set to lose a loved one. This time it's not a daughter, it's a grandmother. Lindsay Sandiford, a 56-year-old grandmother from Great Britain, has been sentenced to death by firing squad for trying to smuggle over 10 pounds of cocaine into Indonesia.

Ms. Sandiford was allegedly part of a smuggling ring. Two other members of the alleged ring have been sentenced to short prison sentences and a third is currently on trial.

Now whatever your position is on the death penalty, I would hope we could at least agree that there is no crime short of murder for which death should even be an option. Imposing a death sentence for bringing a large quantity of dope into the country is more than a bit excessive.

But then Indonesia is a Muslim nation with a history of brutally putting down rebellions over the years - most notably in East Timor. Not that that has ever stopped our government from writing checks like mad to Indonesian dictators.

When Ms. Sandiford is led out to the wall she will have a hood placed over her head. She will be strapped down to a chair. She will have a target placed over her heart. She will die but the drugs will keep flowing.

In Saudi Arabia they executed a woman who was a minor when she allegedly murdered a baby. In Indonesia they will execute a woman for an offense in which no one was injured.

Sure, we can sit around and criticize those nations as being less than civilized. We can point to them and question whether the defendants ever stood a chance in their criminal (in)justice systems. We can then puff our chests out and claim that we're civilized over here. We give a defendant a chance. Our justice system has enough checks and balances to make certain that a condemned prisoner is guilty before strapping him down and killing him.

But then there's Cameron Willingham who was killed by the State of Texas for a crime he didn't commit. Where was the justice?

There's Troy Davis who was killed by the State of Georgia for a murder he most likely didn't commit. Where was the justice?

Saudi Arabia and Indonesia may very well be outliers. But they are outliers on a continuum that includes us. At our core we are no more civilized than those other nations who choose to murder prisoners. Death is death - whether it takes place in an Arabian desert or on a South Pacific island or in the Piney Woods of East Texas.

We're all the lowest common denominator.

Cheering on the state death machine

That's right. You heard the audience cheer when Brian Williams stated how many inmates have been murdered by the State of Texas. You heard a group of right wing Republicans preaching the virtues of limited government cheer because the state carried out 234 murders under Rick Perry's "watch."

Limited government means the citizenry has the right to be left alone. What could possibly violate the principle more than arming the state with the tools to kill its own citizens?

And, even more to the point, Rick Perry knows he sat and allowed an innocent man to be killed by the apparatus of the state when he refused to halt the murder of Cameron Willingham. Rick Perry knows he allowed an innocent man to be killed in the name of Texas and his appointment of Williamson County D.A. John Bradley to emasculate the state forensic science committee is evidence of his guilty mind.

Rick Perry calls himself a Christian yet he gladly boasts about the number of people killed by the state while he's been in Austin. And the sickest part is that folks in the audience cheered him for doing it.

Rick Perry isn't in favor of limited government. Rick Perry wishes to extend the power of the state to meddle in our lives. Rick Perry wants to give the state more authority to intrude upon our right to be left alone.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil

What do you do when you're tired of the Texas Forensic Science Commission keeps sticking its nose into whether or not an innocent man, Cameron Willingham, was murdered by the State of Texas? You have the Attorney General issue an opinion that investigating evidence that the fire was not deliberately set is outside the scope of the Commission's duties.

The Commission was created under the authority of Art. 38.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 4 lays out the duties of the Commission:

Sec. 4. (a) The commission shall: (1) develop and implement a reporting system through which accredited laboratories, facilities, or entities report professional negligence or misconduct; (2) require all laboratories, facilities, or entities that conduct forensic analyses to report professional negligence or misconduct to the commission; and (3) investigate, in a timely manner, any allegation of professional negligence or misconduct that would substantially affect the integrity of the results of a forensic analysis conducted by an accredited laboratory, facility, or entity. (b) An investigation under Subsection (a)(3): (1) must include the preparation of a written report that identifies and also describes the methods and procedures used to identify: (A) the alleged negligence or misconduct; (B) whether negligence or misconduct occurred; and (C) any corrective action required of the laboratory, facility, or entity; and (2) may include one or more: (A) retrospective reexaminations of other forensic analyses conducted by the laboratory, facility, or entity that may involve the same kind of negligence or misconduct; and (B) follow-up evaluations of the laboratory, facility, or entity to review: (i) the implementation of any corrective action required under Subdivision (1)(C); or (ii) the conclusion of any retrospective reexamination under Paragraph (A). (c) The commission by contract may delegate the duties described by Subsections (a)(1) and (3) to any person the commission determines to be qualified to assume those duties. (d) The commission may require that a laboratory, facility, or entity investigated under this section pay any costs incurred to ensure compliance with Subsection (b)(1). (e) The commission shall make all investigation reports completed under Subsection (b)(1) available to the public. A report completed under Subsection (b)(1), in a subsequent civil or criminal proceeding, is not prima facie evidence of the information or findings contained in the report.

When the law was passed in 2005, the act was to apply to evidence tested or offered into evidence after September 1, 2005. The point, presumably, was to provide a safeguard against junk science being admitted into evidence after the effective date of the act by giving the Commission the power to regulate and investigate forensic facilities to ensure that proper scientific procedures were being followed.

The Attorney General takes this to mean that the Commission may not investigate any items or analysis entered into evidence prior to the effective date of the act.

Section 4 limits the scope of the Commission's inquiries to "accredited" entities - but does not define what constitutes an accredited entity. The acts also fails to state whether it mattered if the entity was accredited before or after the effective date.

The Attorney General then refers to Article 38.35(d)(1) to limit the scope of the Commission to entities that were accredited at the time the analysis took place.

Except as provided by Subsection (e), a forensic analysis of physical evidence under this article and expert testimony relating to the evidence are not admissible in a criminal action if, at the time of the analysis, the crime laboratory conducting the analysis was not accredited by the director under Section 411.0205, Government Code.

Well, that's all well and good, Mr. AG, but we're not talking about whether any item of evidence is admissible. We're talking about reviewing an old case to determine whether an innocent man was executed as the result of junk science. Now I understand that Gov. Goodhair is worried that when the world realizes he sat on his hands while an innocent man was murdered by the State of Texas it might cause a bit of a problem for his presidential campaign -- but Gov. Perry's political aspirations are secondary to whether or not an innocent man was murdered.

Gov. Perry began his assault on the Commission when he placed Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley in charge of the Commission on the eve of a hearing in which an arson expert was going to testify that the fire in question was not deliberately set. Through Mr. Bradley, Gov. Perry did everything he could to prevent the Commission from hearing evidence, in public, that Mr. Willingham was innocent. The last thing he wanted was a public record of the murder of an innocent man. Now Greg Abbott is providing cover for the fair-haired one.

Let's think about this for a second. The Commission may only investigate evidence analyzed by forensic facilities that were accredited at the time the evidence was offered. The two bozos who investigated the fire that killed Mr. Willingham's children weren't accredited by the DPS. They had no scientific background at all. Yet, they were allowed to testify that (based on their "gut feeling") Mr. Willingham set the fire that killed his children. So, because the state was permitted to put junk science before a jury that didn't know better, the Commission is not allowed to examine whether or not the evidence should have been admissible.

The purpose of the Commission should be to seek the truth, not to provide political cover for a governor who wants to be president.

How long until they decide to outlaw trial by jury?

The backlash against the not guilty verdicts in the Casey Anthony case has reached Texas. State Sen. Chris Harris (R-Arlington) has let the world know that he intends to introduce a bill that would make it a felony to fail to report a missing child.

That's just what we need in the Lone Star State, another felony.

And, just so we can be reminded that bad facts made even worse laws - Sen. Harris said he will affix Caylee Anthony's name to the proposed legislation. Because we all know that that's what this knee jerk reaction to a jury verdict is all about.

Sen. Harris doesn't give a rat's ass about Caylee Anthony. He saw the opportunity to curry favor with the wing nuts in his district by slapping around the right wing's latest bogeyman -- Casey Anthony.

Don't blame Ms. Anthony for the jury's verdict, Mr. Harris. Take a closer look at the prosecutors. Did they overplay their hand by seeking the death penalty? Did they have one iota of actual physical evidence tying Ms. Anthony to the alleged crime?

While we're drafting legislation in response to a verdict in a Florida trial -- how about you draft legislation that would make it a felony for a prosecutor to withhold exculpatory evidence like a witness who recants his testimony the night before trial. We could call it the Anthony Graves Act.

We could draft legislation that would make it a felony for a prosecutor to hide forensic evidence in order to prevent the defense from running tests. We could call it the Clarence Brandley Act.

We could draft legislation that would make it a felony for prosecutors to put on scientific evidence that they know is nothing but pseudo-scientific junk. We could call it the Cameron Willingham Act.

But no. Wrongful convictions aren't on Sen. Harris' radar. He has no problem with folks being convicted as the result of prosecutorial misconduct and junk science. He has no problem with juries who convict people on less than proof beyond all reasonable doubt. He has no problem with judges who are more concerned with efficiency than justice.

Apparently Sen. Harris has a problem with juries who follow the law.

Death of an innocent

"I don't care how many degrees you may have. How many books you may have written. This was a set fire." -- Douglass Fogg, Assistant Fire Chief (Corsicana, Texas)

This blythe acceptance of junk science is the very reason there need to be strong standards and guidelines in forensic science. There is far too much "science" that can't be tested that is being used in courtrooms across this state, and across this country, to convict people of crimes they may or may not have committed.

In Corsicana, Texas, it was used to convict Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed by the State of Texas for a crime he very likely didn't commit. The Fair-Haired One had the opportunity to stay the execution so that new evidence could be reviewed - but, bowing to political pressure, he declined. Gov. Rick Perry's legacy will be that he authorized the killing of an innocent man.



When you go to your doctor, you want to know that he has been trained, that he has a medical degree and that he keeps up with the latest developments in his field. Would you trust your health to someone who just had a "gut feeling" about what was wrong with you?

Click here for more information about Frontline's presentation of "Death by Fire."

The execution of an innocent?

Tonight PBS' documentary series Frontline takes a look at the controversy surrounding the conviction and execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley has done his best over the past year to prevent the Texas Forensic Science Commission from investigating whether or not junk science led to the execution of an innocent man.

Did Texas execute an innocent man? Several controversial death penalty cases are currently under examination in Texas and in other states, but it's the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham --convicted for the arson deaths of his three young children -- that's now at the center of the national debate. With unique access to those closest to the case, FRONTLINE examines the Willingham conviction in light of new science that raises doubts about whether the fire at the center of the case was really arson at all. The film meticulously examines the evidence used to convict Willingham, provides an in-depth portrait of those most impacted by the case and explores the explosive implications of a possibly innocent man.

 Frontline airs on Houston's KUHT (Channel 8) at 9pm.

Flawed science

Yesterday I wrote about the back-door machinations over at the Texas Forensic Science Commission and an update from their meeting in Houston. The Houston Chronicle noted that a committee made up of members of the commission found that the "experts" who testified that Cameron Willingham set the fire that killed his children weren't negligent and did not exhibit any misconduct during their investigation or testimony in the case.

Now that's all well and good, but the issue isn't whether Deputy State Fire Marshall Manual Vasquez was negligent in his investigation or cooked the books -- the issue is whether the opinions to which Mr. Vasquez testified to at Mr. Willingham's trial were based on good science.

Texas Rule of Evidence 702 states that:

"If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."

Rule 104 makes the judge the so-called gatekeeper when it comes to scientific evidence at trial. The judge makes this determination based on a set of factors laid out in Kelly v. State, 824 SW2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Scientific evidence is admissible if (1) the underlying theory is valid, (2) the technique applying the theory is valid and (3) the technique was applied properly on the time in question.

So the question with regard to the Willingham case isn't whether Mr. Vasquez acted negligently or in bad faith when conducting his investigation or rendering his opinion; the question is whether the his opinion was based on a valid scientific theory. And that is what the Texas Forensic Science Commission needs to focus on instead of covering up the truth in order to keep Rick Perry from having to get a real job.

And this is what Mr. John Bradley doesn't understand. To Mr. Bradley the question of whether scientific evidence is admissible comes down to whether or not the evidence is beneficial to the state's case, not whether the evidence is based on solid science.

Burying the truth like a bone

The blow-dried one, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, is willing to do whatever he can to erase the stink of an innocent man being executed under his watch -- and his lapdog, Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, is doing just as his master commands.

This morning in Houston, the Texas Forensic Science Commission met with Mr. Bradley's move to bury the Cameron Willingham matter heading the agenda. Bradley has prepared a memorandum that would remove the Commission's authority to investigate the Willingham matter any further. According to the Houston Chronicle's Rick Casey, the memo is unsigned and undated but states it was drafted, edited and approved by Mr. Bradley and two other members of the Commission - one of whom, Lance Evans, is a defense attorney and member of TCDLA.

Ever since questions arose regarding the evidence the state used to convict, and later murder, Cameron Willingham, Gov. Goodhair has done everything in his power to make the elephant in the corner disappear. The last thing Perry wants to have to do is answer questions about the Willingham case during the fall campaign for the Governor's Mansion.

The governor's toady, Mr. Bradley, has been only too glad to do Perry's bidding as he continues to disregard his ethical duty as a prosecutor to see that justice is done.

UPDATE:

Based on this Houston Chronicle report, Gov. Perry will be a happy camper tonight as four members of a committee found "insufficient evidence" to suggest that arson investigators were negligent or committed acts of misconduct in their investigation.

Members of a commission reviewing the disputed conclusion that a Texas man committed arson, which led to his 2004 execution for the deaths of his three children, say they do not believe fire investigators in the case committed negligence or misconduct.

Members of the four-person panel within the Texas Forensic Science Commission that is reviewing the probe said Friday their initial findings conclude there is insufficient evidence to establish whether there was negligence or misconduct on the part of the arson investigators. The investigators concluded Cameron Todd Willingham set a 1991 fire at his family's Corsicana home that killed his three young daughters.

A final report on the probe was set to be presented at a commission meeting later this year.

Gov. Perry had the opportunity to discover the truth in the Willingham matter but, instead, chose political expediency. What does this say about the other men sitting in Texas prisons based on testimony of junk scientists?

Convicted rapist exonerated by DNA

Ernest Sonnier who was released from prison last August when evidence surfaced that he had been wrongly convicted of a 1985 rape was exonerated when DNA tests results were released in court today. The tests results excluded Mr. Sonnier from being involved in a second rape that resulted in a murder.  Mr. Sonnier had been a suspect in that case.

For all the talk in law school and the media about how a trial acts as a crucible of truth, Mr. Sonnier's case is a terrifying tale of just what happens when the police are allowed to run the crime "lab" that tests physical evidence in criminal cases. The following excerpt is from The Justice Project's report of the Sonnier case:

Sonnier’s conviction was based largely on misleading forensic testimony and a mistaken eyewitness identification. The victim picked Sonnier out of a photo lineup almost six months after the crime occurred and later identified him in a live lineup. At trial, the victim again identified Sonnier as her attacker, but conceded that the photo of Sonnier looked more like her assailant than did the man in the courtroom.

In addition to the victim’s identification the jury was given faulty forensic testimony skewed to bolster the prosecution’s case. A Houston Crime Lab analyst testified narrowly about the rape kit slides, which evidence did not match Sonnier’s blood type, and affirmed a prosecution effort to explain away the lack of a match by suggesting that the victim’s blood type could have masked the perpetrator’s. In fact, lab records contain no indication of scientific testing or results to support this theory. The analyst also failed to disclose that additional semen evidence from the victim’s clothing was tested, and that all of it failed to match Sonnier’s blood type Jurors were left with an incomplete and misleading picture of the available evidence. Moreover, Sonnier’s attorney did not call a single witness in his defense.

Unfortunately with Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley presiding over the Texas Forensic Science Commission you have the equivalent of the fox guarding the hen house. Mr. Bradley has a vested interest in preserving the status quo and not looking into "old cases" for the more we find out about the shoddy "science" used to deprive people of their freedom (and lives, in the case of Cameron Willingham), the more the public will question the win at all costs mentality that infects too many prosecutors across this state and this country.

Forensic science commission meeting to be streamed online

The Texas Forensic Science Commission will meet at 9:00 a.m. on April 23, 2010 (Friday) to discuss the Cameron Willingham case.

Click here for the meeting agenda.

The meeting is being streamed over the internet. Click here to watch it.

Skinner execution stayed despite Perry's best efforts

changeJustice: Execution set for 6pm CST tomorrow, Hank Skinner needs us now...Tell TX Governor to grant stay!http://cot.ag/bsEfCP

PrisonReformMvt: Call to action! Demand a stay for#HankSkinner Gov Perry 512-463-1782 Fax: 512-463-1849 Main number: 512-463-2000

thetrialwarrior: SPEAK OUT AGAINST INJUSTICE: Call Texas Gov. Perry 512-463-1782 and urge him to stay #HankSkinner's execution to allow a DNA test.

Messages bounced everywhere across the Twitterverse yesterday regarding the pending execution of Hank Skinner. Scarely an hour before the State of Texas was set to pump poison through Mr. Skinner's veins, the United States Supreme Court granted a stay of execution.

For an excellent analysis of the procedural history of Mr. Skinner's case, please see Houston criminal defense attorney Mark Bennett's blog post.

Back in Twitterville, tweeple were congratulating each other for their efforts in sparing Mr. Skinner's life (at least for now). However, social media had nothing to do with the Supremes' decision late yesterday afternoon. Moreover, the blow-dried one, Governor Rick Perry, ignored the deluge of phone calls, faxes, e-mails, and tweets. You see, there's nothing to be gained for Gov. Perry in delaying the execution. The votes of death penalty abolitionists and criminal defense attorneys aren't enough to make the governor think twice about allowing the murder of a man to go forward.

Perry has sabotaged (successfully to date) the work of the state forensic science commission in looking at the Cameron Willingham case. Perry's supporters don't care about due process and claims of actual innocence -- they want blood. And that blood is what will keep Perry on the public dole for another four years.

Trying to bury the truth

"There will be peace in the valley for me some day." -- Thomas A. Dorsey (1937)

Maybe that's what Williamson County DA John Bradley thought when he scheduled the meeting for the Texas Forensic Science Commission in Harlingen after abruptly cancelling the commission's last scheduled meeting in October 2009.

Instead of discussing Craig Beyler's report criticizing the arson investigation in the Cameron Willingham case, Mr. Bradley thought it would be better to discuss the policies and procedures by which Mr. Bradley thought the commission should operate. Well, that and his decision to kick an Austin-based camera crew out of the meeting room in violation of the open meetings act.

Mr. Bradley's reluctance to discuss the case of Mr. Willingham -- more than likely the first documented case of an innocent man being executed, er, murdered by the State of Texas -- is understandable. Mr. Bradley's a prosecutor who was elected by the people of Williamson County based on his promise to put the bad guys in jail. The last thing Mr. Bradley wants is the public to know that sometimes prosecutors get it wrong. He, and the rest of the law enforcement establishment, don't want the public questioning the death penalty.

Perhaps he should review Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 3.09 about the special responsibilities of a prosecutor.

The committee members didn't go for Mr. Bradley's attempts to neuter the commission. They voted down his proposals that would have given him dictatorial powers over the commission and forced him to place the Willingham case on the agenda for the committee's next meeting in April.

Paybacks can be hell

University of Houston law professor David Dow is now wearing the shoe off the other foot. Mr. Dow and the Texas Defender Service (TDS) were in the middle of the controversy swirling around Judge Killer, er... Keller, and her closing of the Court of Criminal Appeals clerk's office on the night of Michael Richard's execution.

On November 18 the Court ordered Mr. Dow to appear before the Court for a show cause hearing on the TDS' untimely filed documents in another death penalty case.

Under the Court's Miscellaneous Rule No. 08-101, adopted in June 2008, any motions filed relating to a death sentence are considered late if filed less than 48 hours before 6pm on the date of the execution. If a pleading is filed within 48 hours, a sworn statement of why the pleading is being filed late must be attached.

TDS filed the writ on the afternoon of November 17, 2009. In Mr. Dow's sworn statement he said he did not receive the file in question until November 6, 2009 (twelve days before the scheduled execution) and that the grounds for the writ of habeas corpus changed on November 15, 2009 due to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. He also noted the time constraints of dealing with multiple cases near the deadline.

Mr. Dow's writ was denied and his client was executed on November 18, 2009.

Judge Keller did not participate in the decision to deny Mr. Dow's writ and she did not participate in the show cause hearing.

I understand the need for courts to have adequate time to review pleadings before a deadline, but I have to question the need for Miscellaneous Rule No. 08-101. We're talking about a human life. With all of the controversy regarding the execution of Cameron Willingham, I should think the State of Texas would be cautious before ordering the murder of anyone else.

Texas Senate holds hearings on state forensic commission

The Texas Senate Committee on Criminal Justice met this morning to question Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley who was recently appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to head the Texas Forensic Science Commission.

The meeting was broadcast live over the web and can be accessed here. One of the highlights was Houston's own state clown, er... senator, Dan Patrick, pooh-poohing the notion that the committee should look into whether or not junk science led to the execution of an innocent man.

(In order to view the file you must have the RealAudio player installed on your computer.)

What's good for the goose...

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is fighting efforts from news organizations to obtain an memo from his general counsel recommending a 30-day reprieve for Cameron Willingham, quite likely the first documented innocent man executed by the State of Texas.

The blow-dried one has blocked release of the advisory memo claiming the release of the memo would violate the attorney-client privilege. Prior to the state-sponsored murder of Mr. Willingham, the governor's office received a forensics report indicating that the fire that killed Mr. Willingham's children could not be proven to be the result of arson.

Ironically enough, in 2003, Gov. Perry did not object to the release of execution memoranda written for his predecessor, George W. Bush. Those memoranda were released.

This is the best that Perry can do?

The headline screams that Cameron Willingham confessed to setting the fire that killed his children and led to his murder at the hands of the State of Texas. However, upon closer inspection, this "confession" dissipates in the air as you look into it.

It turns out that the affiant is the brother of Mr. Willingham's former wife. According to Ronnie Kuykendall, his sister, Cameron Willingham's ex-wife, cried as she told him that Mr. Willingham confessed to setting the fire.

So, the best the well-coiffed governor's minions can come up with to justify his refusal to halt the murder of Mr. Willingham is an affidavit containing hearsay within hearsay. Torpedoing the forensic committee's investigation into the junk science propounded by arson investigators and releasing worthless affidavits - how's that for a campaign slogan?

I guess it beats "I killed an innocent man -- Vote for me!"

Where there's smoke...

The ousted chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, Sam Bassett, says that lawyers representing the blow-dried one, Gov. Rick Perry, twice tried to pressure him into dropping the panel's investigation of the Cameron Willingham case. Mr. Bassett was so concerned about the pressure being placed on him that he consulted with an aide to Texas State Senator John Whitmire (D-Houston).

Mr. Bassett says that when the governor's attorneys, David Cabrales and Mary Ann Wiley, met with him in February 2009 they told him the commission was wasting taxpayers' money examining old cases. He said he was told the commission should be more "forward thinking."

Sen. Whitmire has said he will push Williamson County D.A. John Bradley, the new commission chair, to continue the panel's investigation into the Willingham case.

It would appear that Gov. Perry is running scared. How would it look to the voters if it turned out Texas murdered an innocent man on his watch?

Governor appoints new members to forensic science panel

The well-coiffed one, Texas Governor Rick Perry got around to appointing two new members to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, just a little over a week after causing the panel to scuttle a session that many believe would be critical of the arson investigation that resulted in the state-sponsored killing of Cameron Willingham. (See "Forensic panel cancels meeting after Gov. Perry dismisses three members.")

Joining Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley and Norma Farley, chief pathologist for Cameron and Hidalgo Counties are Fort Worth criminal defense attorney Lance Evans and Randall Evans, the head of the Bexar County Medical Examiner's Office.

When asked why Perry chose to replace four committee members, his spokesman replied that their terms were up and the governor wanted someone else on the committee.

No word on when the hearing on arson investigation, originally set for October 2, will be rescheduled.

Forensic panel cancels meeting after Gov. Perry dismisses three members

Forty-eight hours before the Texas Forensic Science Commission was set to meet to discuss a report that was critical of the arson investigation in the Cameron Willingham case, Governor Rick Perry replaced three members of the commission, forcing it to cancel Friday's meeting.

The impeccably coiffed governor named Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley and forensic scientist Norma Jean Farley to take the now-vacant seats on the commission. The third new member will be named after the Texas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (of which I am a member) provides a recommendation.

Perry told The Associated Press the terms of the dismissed board members were expiring and replacing them "was pretty standard business as usual." But several board members have served more than one term and had their appointments renewed.

Earlier this month, Perry expressed confidence in Willingham's guilt and derided reports questioning the arson investigation, referring to their authors as "supposed experts." He said he had not "seen anything that would cause me to think that the decision" to execute Willingham "was not correct."

Craig Beyler, an arson expert from Baltimore, issued a report that was highly critical of the investigation undertaken by Deputy State Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez in the Willingham case. Appointing a prosecutor, especially from Williamson County (north of Austin), is a nice touch from the blow-dried one since most prosecutors just assume that if you're a defendant that you must be guilty.

Nixon had his Saturday night massacre, Perry has his Wednesday night drive-by.

I guess the anticipation was just too much for Perry to bear -- after all, it doesn't do much for one's reputation to be the one in charge when an innocent man was sent to his death.

In other news, the fox has been been chosen to guard the hen house.

Evidence mounts that Texas executed an innocent man

In August 2008, I wrote about the case of Cameron Willingham who was murdered by the State of Texas for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three children. Today there is more evidence than before that Texas murdered an innocent man.

In the upcoming issue of The New Yorker is a piece by reporter David Grann that looks at the Willingham case inside and out. Mr. Grann's portrait of incompetence and intellectual dishonesty casts the blame for Mr. Willingham's murder by lethal injection far and wide.

While he castigates Deputy State Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez for his junk science, laziness and perjured testimony and Mr. Willingham's court-appointed attorneys for their (shall we say) failure to provide a vigorous defense, Mr. Grann provides a haunting look at the hell Mr. Willingham endured during his years on death row.

The article also makes me wonder how much longer we will have to put up with pseudo-scientific evidence such as bite mark analysis, handwriting analysis, tire tread analysis and all the other expert testimony that is "more art than science." When will our judiciary finally understand that criminal trial work is not merely an academic exercise? How many times will we have to hear the Court of Criminal Appeals state that factual innocence alone is insufficient to overturn a conviction? When will our lawmakers realize that the death penalty never has been, and never will be, an effective deterrent?

How many more innocent men have been murdered in the death house in Huntsville?