SlipLive

Texas may have put innocent man to death, panel told

With Texas' criminal justice system the subject of intense scrutiny for a crime lab scandal and a series of wrongful convictions, a state Senate committee heard testimony Tuesday about the possibility that Texas had experienced the ultimate criminal justice nightmare: the execution of an innocent person.

Fourteen months after Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in the nation's busiest death chamber, a renowned arson expert and Willingham's lawyer told the Senate Criminal Justice Committee that they believed Willingham might have been innocent but found nobody willing to listen to their claim in the days before the execution in February 2004.

"This was a frustrating case, and it was frustrating because it appeared that we could not get anybody to listen," said attorney Walter Reaves, who represented Willingham.

"To say that this case was thoroughly reviewed," Reaves added, "I have my doubts."

The execution of Willingham, convicted of the December 1991 arson fire that killed his three young daughters, was a focus of a hearing into a proposed innocence commission.

Governor's committee

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has, by executive order, set up his own committee. But critics, including state Sen. Rodney Ellis, a longtime advocate of criminal justice reform in Texas, and Barry Scheck, a co-founder of the New York-based Innocence Project, told the senators that to be effective the governor's panel needed to subpoena sworn testimony, obtain documents and seek forensic testing. Ellis, a Houston Democrat, has sponsored legislation to beef up the power of Perry's panel.

"Without subpoena power and the ability to order testing, I don't see how the committee can get to the bottom of these cases," Scheck said after testifying. "I haven't heard of a committee that didn't want all of those things. If you want to find out the truth, you have to have the mechanisms to do it."

A Tribune investigation of the Willingham case last December showed that he was prosecuted and convicted based primarily on arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances--a fact backed up by testimony Tuesday by one of those experts, Gerald Hurst.

According to Hurst and three other fire experts who reviewed evidence in the case at the Tribune's request, the original investigation that concluded the fire was arson was flawed, relying on theories no longer considered valid. It is even possible the fatal fire at the Willingham home in Corsicana, a small town about an hour south of Dallas, was accidental, according to the experts.

Nonetheless, before Willingham died by lethal injection on Feb. 17, 2004, Texas judges and Perry turned aside a report from Hurst in which he questioned the arson evidence and suggested the fire was an accident.

"The state," Hurst testified Tuesday, "needs to take an interest in these matters."

Willingham maintained his innocence until the end. Strapped to a gurney in the death chamber last year, an angry Willingham said: "I am an innocent man, convicted of a crime I did not commit."

The scientific advances that Hurst and the other experts cited in the Willingham case played a role in the exoneration last year of another Texas Death Row inmate, Ernest Willis. Hurst told the Senate committee that the two fires were identical, and that an investigation is needed to determine why Willingham died and Willis lived.

Many prosecutors oppose expanding the power of Perry's committee, called the Criminal Justice Advisory Council. Barry Macha, the district attorney in Wichita County, testified legislators should first give the governor's panel a chance to work as designed.

But that drew a skeptical response from the committee chairman, state Sen. John Whitmire.

Bush role in 2000 case

"The problem is, they're appointed by the governor," Whitmire, also a Democrat from Houston, said of the council's members. "I would almost give them subpoena power and the first time they abuse it, we'll all come back."

Scheck also pointed to the case of Claude Jones, executed in December 2000 for the murder of Allen Hilzendager, who was shot and killed in a 1989 liquor store robbery. In that case, Scheck said, counsel for then-Gov. George W. Bush prepared a recommendation for Bush that did not mention that Jones' request for a 30-day stay of execution was to allow DNA tests to be done on a hair found at the scene. Bush denied the request for a stay.

Last year, the Tribune asked to see the recommendation in the Willingham case to try to determine whether Perry was informed of Hurst's last-minute analysis. But the Tribune's request was rejected by state officials who said the documents are considered confidential.

Scheck told the Senate committee he believed the hair in the Jones case was still in evidence and that an innocence commission with broad powers could seek to test the hair to determine if Jones was guilty. Without that ability, Scheck testified, the commission "would be hampered or powerless in its ability to get to the bottom of this very important case."

treefrog forgetting to log in again sorry guys.Man I feel like crying this poor man.

You think maybe they would re evaluate the death penalty.Nope :(

Could ya quote the source and give a link?

Hi Jeff...how's it going, man?

Here's one related article (there are many via various searches):

http://www.web.amnesty.org/library/Inde ... of=ENG-2AM

It's pretty widely known that Texas is infamous for being the state with the most executions. The Death Penalty is always sure to spark feverish debate (like Abortion, other forms of human rights, Religion, etc), but if you speak with any knowledgeable criminal defense attorneys (yes, arguably a biased bunch), you'll realize that a certain percentage are inevitably executed from state to state (some states much worse than others). You'll also notice the unfair representation of our justice system and how blacks and other minorities have an extremely disproproportionately larger chance of being convicted and executed simply because they can't afford the best legal counsel and the State is averse to even giving them decent lawyers for their apparent crimes.

Now, being a victim of violent crimes myself, I am intimately aware of how dangerous some people really are, also how some perfectly normal people become dangerous killers in extreme circumstances (like war - my father being one of these dangerous killers -- but he is a noble man and I would love him even if he were not my father). Certainly I have considered taking such actions against whom I feel is "truly evil", but I think part of being a compassionate human is being able to forgive these transgressions, no matter how hard it is ("to err is human, to forgive is divine"). Frankly, however, if I ever saw Hitler in real life up close and personal, I doubt I would hesitate to take action. Millions of Allied soldiers in WWII gave their lives to have this chance -- in the end, Adolf laughed at everyone and took this chance for himself.

So, I think if that bastard was so demented to kill himself anyways, maybe executing him would be doing him a favor, in a sense. Likewise there are real nasty serial killers who will just keep on killing because to them it is fun -- they even get sexual enjoyment out of killing -- but regardless it is still verifiable fact that many who are falsely convicted are executed anyways, and those in power relish the opportunity to have this own right to take life literally into their own hands. Clemency is rare in certain states -- perhaps as a reaction to the rare compassion found in wonton murderers who execute others themselves, so stopping this endless cycle is not going to happen anytime soon (in this country, where our educational system is challenged to the breaking point, and new serial killers breed like rabbits because other things just aren't so much fun nor are the opportunties there like they were a decade or two ago).

Now about evaluating the death penalty -- this happens on a daily basis. But in Texas, they have a more "frontier style" mentality, and the law of the gun is still the law of the land. States in the US are very much like mini-countries, and even though you'll find fewer who argue against capital punishment in Texas, in California you may find the opposite. I also seem to think it is a religious thing, but that is a whole 'nother discussion (Old Testament vs. New Testament and then there's other religions but the Bible South has a strong foothold of Bible Thumpers who feel that Christ was the Man and everyone else can and will go to hell -- except for them -- regardless of how much they sin themselves).

I'm definitely against the death penalty as a principle, but I can see cases where many people being murdered in plain sight and obvious evidence might convince me if I were on a jury. A jury thinks with several minds, so my own views are not 100% (I'm not the judge, just a cog in the machinery). Now I would be vocal about giving a second chance, but after a third and fourth chance, is it really a benefit to society to keep someone in jail, maybe letting them kill another prisoner or a guard? Or the relative costs, the psychological factor...do killers care if they're killed or not? Maybe letting them rot for life is better than giving them the easy way out. These are very complex thoughts and when talking about life and death, morality and religion are sacrosanct and the guiding principle of law, even though we "preach" about the need to separate Church and State (in some States, the Church is the State...look at the 10 Commandments sculpture and similar examples of how the Bible is the only book some people read -- my apologies to my Christian friends who are highly literate and read the Koran and Karl Marx alike and aren't afraid of the Word of Man even if they believe completely the Word of God).

So, these are real "heavy duty" concepts, and they will never really be resolved. If you're "dead set" against the death penalty, you are always free to move about the country (or go to another). Some states will never change...I am pretty sure of this (but I could be wrong). Other states change frequently...a lot of this I think depends on the transition in the state and influx/outflux of the populace (this gets into demographics, which is very complicated stuff).

Now all this high-falutin' talk means nothing to someone sitting in a chair with an electrode in a metal hat sitting on their head ready to pump a million Joules of electricty into their skull. But maybe somewhere a Governor or the President (just not Bush and Bush) will have a brief attack of compassion and give a stay of execution for someone who had a case that was just a bit flaky or an attorney who was a drunk or whatever extreme circumstances justify giving a pardon. That is truly the gift of life, but I'm not surprised we don't see this more often in Texas or Florida.

-Phrazz

ROTTEN