Disgraced former DA gets new gig

Disgraced former Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley has finally landed a new gig. He will be working in the Attorney General's Office in the Republic of Palau - a former US territory in Micronesia.

For those of y'all who may have been hiding under a rock the past couple of years, Mr. Bradley lost his post when he lost in the GOP primary back in 2012. As conservative as folks might be in Williamson County, they weren't able to overlook his role in the Michael Morton affair.

While it was former DA and former Judge (and former attorney) Ken Anderson who played fast and loose with the rules during the Morton investigation and trial, Mr. Bradley was the mouthpiece for those who wanted to preserve a bad conviction at any price. As a result of the illegal and shameful conduct by the Williamson County DA's Office, Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life and a killer walked free while he sat behind bars for a crime he didn't commit.

From Ms. Falkenburg's piece:

"I don't wake up every morning gnashing my teeth and shaking my fist at, you know, 'where's John Bradley?' I've literally and figuratively moved on," [Michael Morton] said. 

"At this stage of the game, I wish him well," Morton said. "And, you know, adios."

The fact that Bradley had to go all the way to Palau to get a gig just goes to show how reprehensible his actions were in defending the conviction.

It remains to be seen whether Palau will experience some of Bradley's brand of "justice."

Dropping the other shoe

Michael Morton spent 25 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Once evidence surfaced that Mr. Morton might just have been innocent of the murder of his wife, the Williamson County District Attorney, John Bradley, fought tooth and nail to prevent the evidence from being tested.

The DA at the time of Mr. Morton's trial, Ken Anderson, was now a state district court judge in Williamson County and the office was circling the wagons to cover up the sins of one of their own.

Eventually the evidence was tested - and it exonerated Mr. Morton.

Twenty-five years is a long time to sit in prison - especially if you were wrongly convicted. Even worse if that conviction were the result of prosecutorial misconduct. There is nothing that can make up for that time. Mr. Morton will never have the opportunity to see his son grow up. An apology from the court and a check from the state can't cover the debt Mr. Morton is owed.

During the investigation of the murder of Christine Morton, investigators interviewed Mr. Morton's three-year-old son who told police that his father wasn't at home when his mother was killed. There were also police reports about a suspicious van in the area and a man who wandered up behind the Morton's house on more than one occasion.

Prosecutors failed to disclose that information to the defense before or during trial. And, of course, the jury never heard a word about any of it. Making it worse, Judge. Anderson then lied to the judge presiding over Mr. Morton's trial when asked about the evidence.

But now the other shoe has dropped. On Friday, State District Judge Louis Sturns, presiding over a court of inquiry, found that Judge Anderson broke two laws in his handling of the matter and that he committed criminal contempt when he lied to the court. Then Judge Sturns ordered Judge Anderson arrested.

In a blunt and scathing ruling, District Judge Louis Sturns said Anderson acted to defraud the trial court and Morton’s defense lawyers, resulting in an innocent man serving almost 25 years in prison. 

“This court cannot think of a more intentionally harmful act than a prosecutor’s conscious choice to hide mitigating evidence so as to create an uneven playing field for a defendant facing a murder charge and a life sentence,” Sturns said.

Let that sink in for a moment.

First the judge tells a fellow judge that he broke the law while handling the Morton case, then he issues an arrest order for a sitting judge. That just doesn't happen in Texas.

Judge Anderson was taken into custody, posted bond and was released that evening. But the sting of Judge Sturns' words will never be erased. A sitting state district judge broke the law and lied to a judge all in the name of trying to win a case against a man he knew - or should have known - was innocent of the charge.

Judge Anderson challenged the ruling and informed Judge Sturns that he plans to appeal on the grounds that the court of inquiry exceeded the scope of its authority and that the statute of limitations had already run. He also claimed that the evidence didn't support Judge Sturns' findings.

It is more than a little interesting to note that Judge Anderson has never denied hiding the evidence. Neither he nor John Bradley found anything wrong with not disclosing exculpatory evidence to Mr. Morton's attorneys

While the Michael Morton Act expanding the items the state must turn over to the defense prior to trial is a step in the right direction, the actions of Judge Sturns are the equivalent of turning the entire truck around. A ruling that a piece of evidence is inadmissible is one thing - a ruling that a prosecutor's actions constituted a criminal act is something entirely different.

If we want to make certain that no one else has to go through what Michael Morton went through, we have to start holding prosecutors accountable for their actions. This isn't a game we play, what goes in those courtrooms affect people's lives in profound ways. Judge Anderson's actions not only robbed Mr. Morton of 25 years, they also robbed his loved ones of those 25 years.

I just wonder if Judge Anderson has enough honor to step down from the bench he has disgraced.

And the news just keeps getting worse

Life's just not getting any easier for embattled Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley. Not only is he facing what appears to be an uphill fight to hold onto his office, he must also deal with complaints filed with both the State Bar and the Travis County DA's Office that he was negligent in his leadership of the State Forensic Sciences Commission.

Dr. Christopher Nulf, Ph.D., a former analyst with the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences in Dallas, alleges that Mr. Bradley, while chair of the FSC, failed to notify his fellow committee members of any potential conflicts of interest and that he made false statements to the public.

Click here for the ethics complaint filed with the State Bar. 

Click here for the Dr. Nulf's letter to the Travis County DA.

Under Mr. Bradley's stewardship of the FSC, Dr. Nulf filed a complaint about the many problems he observed at the SWIFS facility. The Committee failed to conduct its own investigation into the allegations - choosing, instead, to allow ASCLD/LAB (American Society of Crime Lab Directors), the body that "accredits" crime labs, to conduct a series of telephone interviews with directors of SWIFS. He also allowed committee members who had conducted business with ASCLD or Dallas County (SWIFS), or who had entered into contracts with them, to vote and take part in commission discussions regarding Dr. Nulf's allegations.

More disturbing is the fact that these problems were occurring right under the nose of the organization that provide accreditation to the crime lab. The problems in Dallas, and the recent revelation that there have been problems in the DPS Crime Lab in Houston raise questions about just how thorough an audit ASCLD performs. We won't even mention the fact that the crime labs pay ASCLD for their accreditation audit.

Nope. No problems here.

Williamson County DA dragged kicking and screaming toward justice

John Bradley did his best to keep Michael Morton locked up behind bars. Even while presiding over the (emasculated) Texas Forensic Science Commission, the Williamson County District Attorney fought efforts by Mr. Morton's attorneys to conduct DNA testing on evidence introduced during in 1987 trial. Mr. Morton was charged with and convicted for the murder of his wife.

But it was all to no avail.

Mr. Morton is a free man once again, having been freed from the state penitentiary after Travis County prosecutors linked evidence found at the scene of the Morton murder with evidence found at another murder. That's right. Not Williamson County prosecutors. Prosecutors from down I-35.

There are also allegations that Williamson County prosecutors withheld evidence that might have exonerated Mr. Morton at trial. Apparently no one in the office thought they needed to turn over evidence that one of Ms. Morton's credit cards was used in San Antonio two days after her death or that someone cashed a check by forging her signature nine days after she was murdered.

Details. Details. Details. I mean, you can't possibly expect prosecutors to tie up every last loose end can you? We need to move these cases along. We need closure, dammit!

Bexar County Judge Sid Harle offered Mr. Morton his apologies after setting him free.

"You do have my sympathies," Harle said. "We don’t have a perfect system of justice, but we do have the best system in the world."

Unless you're behind bars for over two decades for a crime you didn't commit, I suppose.

Of course Mr. Bradley sought to deflect criticism for his role in keeping an innocent man behind bars. We all know that Mr. Bradley is very interested in seeing that justice is done. Just take a look at his record while turning the forensic science commission into a coffee klatch.

According to a story in the Texas Tribune, Mr. Bradley was wrapping himself in the flag and acting the part of the hero after Mr. Morton's release.

Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley said that the new developments - which he said were a lightning bolt type of discovery - warranted a reversal of Morton's murder conviction. 

"It is my just, as district attorney, to make sure that justice is done," Bradley said after the court action today.

Well, I guess it's too late to worry about whether justice was served when Cameron Willingham was murdered by the state of Texas for a crime he didn't commit. After all, he was already dead, what good is justice when you're six feet under?

Mr. Bradley has some nerve to characterize the evidence the way he did after he fought tooth-and-nail for six years to prevent DNA testing. Where was his desire to see justice done then?

Tragedies such as Mr. Morton's are what happen when we worship at the altar of finality rather than justice.

Morton Findings

See also:

"Free! But damn! 25 years," Gamso for the Defense (Oct. 4, 2011)

"Belated justice in Williamson County for innocent man delayed for years by DA opposition to DNA testing," Grits for Breakfast (Oct. 3, 2011)

"Morton to be freed from prison today," Austin American-Statesman (Oct. 3, 2011)

"John Bradley called too biased to fairly evaluate DNA innocence claim," Grits for Breakfast (Aug. 17, 2011)

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.

A little of this and a bit of that

Here are a few odds and ends you might find interesting:

Bradley out as chairman of forensic commission

Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley's stint as chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission has come to an end as the senate concluded its session without voting on whether to accept Gov. Perry's nomination of Mr. Bradley.

Gov. Perry appointed Mr. Bradley to chair the commission in 2009 prior to a scheduled hearing in which the commission was to take testimony from Craig Beyler about the flawed science used by arson investigators that led to the execution of Cameron Willingham.

During his time as chairman, however, Mr. Bradley accomplished the fair haired governor's wishes to delay the release of the committee's findings until after the 2010 gubernatorial election.

Patrick cowers in fear

Texas State Senator Dan Patrick has once again proved himself to be a big bag of hot air as he withdrew his bill that would have criminalized groping by TSA personnel in airports. Mr. Patrick ran and hid in a closet after receiving a letter from the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas threatening that TSA might cancel flights in Texas should the legislation pass.

Every year on the Fourth of July, Mr. Patrick rides in a car at the Memorial Villages 4th of July parade; and every year my wife gives me an ugly face when I mock Mr. Patrick in front of my daughters. Certainly my lack of civility and uncouthness is far worse than Mr. Patrick's demagoguery.

One wonders, was Mr. Patrick worried that the bill might actually pass?

If Mr. Patrick is so concerned about privacy issues for airline passengers, why isn't he concerned with the steady erosion of the 4th Amendment?

Wanted man

John Joe Gray is on the lam for allegedly assaulting a peace officer in December 1999. He was bonded out of jail a few days later and never appeared in court. He has lived on his armed compound in Henderson County, Texas with his family ever since.

Years ago he warned local law enforcement officials to bring extra body bags if they wanted to capture him. The local sheriff has said he's not risking the lives of any officers to bring in Mr. Gray.

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.

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.

Fun with forensics

Gov. Rick Perry's choice to head the Texas Forensic Science Commission received a slap in the face from the Austin Court of Appeal yesterday. Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey thinks the other members of the commission should have been pleased.

Almost twenty-three years ago Michael Morton was convicted of killing his wife in a fit of rage. A bloody bandana was found less than 100 yards away from the body. As Williamson County District Attorney, John Bradley fought for five years to avoid having to run DNA tests on the bandana.

“There are 155,000 inmates in Texas prisons,” he said. “Every single one would like to be somewhere else, and every single one under the standard (Raley) proposes would have the ability to test any piece of evidence they want. That's why the Legislature set up standards for post-conviction tests.”

A federal judge said he “questions (Bradley's) rationale for rejecting the plaintiff's offer to conduct DNA and other testing at their own expense, particularly in light of (his) duties to uphold the Constitution and seek and provide fair and impartial justice,” but it was a matter for the state.

And this is the man the fair-haired one thought would be a good person to preside over a committee reviewing the state of forensic sciences in Texas. This is the man who a Senate committee that he didn't think the commission needed to review past cases.

Needless to say, Mr. Bradley was unavailable for comment.

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.)

Oops, there I go again...

From KEYE-TV in Austin, we have the story of a Williamson County (Texas) Sheriff's detective who was popped for his second DWI over the weekend:

A Williamson County Sheriff's detective who had previously been convicted of drunk driving has now been accused again.

Austin police arrested Jeff Gee Sunday near Lakeline Mall. 

The arresting officer said in an arrest affidavit that Gee was driving the wrong way on Ridgeline Boulevard at RR 620. He admitted drinking six 16 ounce glasses of beer, according to the affidavit.

The document also said Gee had been convicted of DWI in Brownsville in 1989.

Sheriff's office spokesperson John Foster says detective Gee is now on administrative leave with pay.

Apparently the police don't bother to exercise their right to remain silent, either.

At least for Det. Gee's sake he was stopped in Travis County and not in Williamson County, the bailiwick of District Attorney John Bradley (generally recognized as being crazy - see this post from my colleague Mark Bennett's Defending People).  

As anyone familiar with the goings-on in Central Texas knows, it's always best to be behaving badly south of Williamson-Travis County line.