• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Texas might have executed an innocent man

Phokus

Lifer
Oops! 🙁

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."

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...smayhaveputinnocentmantodeathpaneltold
 
You think they care...😛

[/blanket statement invoking rampant pitch-fork shaking and repeated gun shots from the angry townsfolk]
 
Gah, the death penalty is repugnant. To allow the state, the government, to take such permanent action is inexcusably reckless.
 
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.


Surprise, surprise the defense lawyer is a schmuck. He says he believes his client MIGHT be innocent? WELL WHO REPRESENTED HIM WHEN HE PLEAD NOT GUILTY? So he kew he might have been guilty, agreed to the plea of not guilty and represented him anyway? This tool has no ethical boundaries.
 
I am a firm believer in capital punishment, but the criminal justice system is broken and I wouldn't put anyone to death until it is fixed.



 
The risk of wrongful execution, whether slight or great, is the reason many states, and so many other civilized nations, no longer use the death penalty.

Unfortunately, stories like this are nothing new.
 
It's stuff like this that pisses me off. Why the hell would you want to kill somebody when you can't be 100% sure? Even then, it seems that makes you just as much a monster. Human life is sacred, who gave the courts the right to take it from that man? Keeping him in prison for life would have been a much better plan, and would have resulted in an ending that while still terrible, would be infinitely better than the current situation. I'm glad I live in a state without the death penalty. Not saying that the guy is innocent for sure, because we don't know that, but that's just so wrong. At least if he was imprisoned for life, he might've been released and exonerated, instead of this mess.
 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
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.


Surprise, surprise the defense lawyer is a schmuck. He says he believes his client MIGHT be innocent? WELL WHO REPRESENTED HIM WHEN HE PLEAD NOT GUILTY? So he kew he might have been guilty, agreed to the plea of not guilty and represented him anyway? This tool has no ethical boundaries.

even guilty people have the right to be represented by a lawyer. it doesn't matter what the lawyer feels about the case, it is still his responsibility to defend his client to the best of his ability.
 
There was a Boston Legal episode which detailed the way death row appeals are handled. It's scary, I mean scary. They can dismiss arguments in an appeal if the topic was not raised in the first trial, which means if you have an idiot lawyer in the first trial you're f%$#ed.

Texas High Court judges must get some perverse pleasure out of killing people.
 
Originally posted by: yukichigai
They can dismiss arguments in an appeal if the topic was not raised in the first trial, which means if you have an idiot lawyer in the first trial you're f%$#ed.

how do you think any appeal works?
 
The fact that our justice system is imperfect enough to convict the innocent is the main reason I am against the death penalty.
I used to be FOR it...but that was when I thought the main argument against it was "no one deserves to die for their crimes", which is crap.
 
I'm all for the removal of the death penalty and the de-pussification of prison protocol. Make it a living hell, not a free ride on tax-payer's money.
 
Back
Top