Jan. 8
TEXAS:
Getting it wrong in Texas
'It was just a fire."
That's what a renowned arson investigator said of a 1991 fire that claimed
the lives of three little girls. He said it may well have been an
accident.
Unfortunately, Texas' justice system was too blind to consider that
investigator's analysis as it condemned Cameron Todd Willingham to death
for setting the fire that killed his 3 children. The result: Texas last
year may well have executed an innocent man.
As Tribune reporters Steve Mills and Maurice Possley detailed in an
astonishing report last month, the case against Willingham was built atop
one hollow brick after another. Many of the claims made at trial by fire
investigators were based on theories that since have been repudiated by
scientific advances.
Four fire experts who reviewed the case at the request of the Tribune
found the investigation to be seriously flawed. They said it was possible
the fire was merely an accident.
The Texas deputy state fire marshal who investigated the case testified at
Willingham's trial that the melted aluminum threshold was evidence that an
accelerant had been used to set the fire.
He was wrong. A fire that started without accelerant, new research shows,
could have burned hot enough to melt the threshold.
The fact that traces of charcoal lighter fluid were found under the front
threshold, the fire marshal testified, also provided evidence accelerant
was used to light the fire.
Wrong again. Firefighters' hoses may well have propelled the plastic
container of lighter fluid that had been on the porch under the threshold.
He claimed that "brown rings" found on the concrete front porch also
pointed to use of an accelerant.
Wrong. Such rings can be left when puddles of fire-hose water evaporate.
Burn marks found under carpet tiles and the crackly "crazed" glass also
provided proof that an accelerant was used, according to the fire
marshal's testimony.
Wrong.
In fact, this fire marshal apparently had never met a fire he didn't think
was arson. At least that's what he said during Willingham's trial. He
stated that during his career, nearly every fire he ever investigated was
arson--a statement fire experts who reviewed this case for the Tribune
found astonishing and incredulous.
Prosecutors offered up an unreliable jailhouse snitch on psychiatric
medication who claimed Willingham confessed to him. They also based their
case on the suggestion that Willingham didn't appear to be aggressive
enough about getting his children out of the 1991 fire and that he didn't
appear as grief-stricken afterward as he should have been. They offered a
questionable motive: He wanted more time for drinking beer and throwing
darts.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Texas judges had access to the report by the
prominent scientist, Gerald Hurst, that sharply questioned whether this
fire was set by an arsonist.
They set the report aside. Willingham was executed last February.
That's what passes for justice in Texas. The Willingham case undermines
the notion that we execute only those we know to be guilty "beyond a
reasonable doubt." It should send a shiver across the nation.
(source: Editorial, Chicago Tribune)
*************************
Claims of innocence deserve investigation
The growing number of Texas prisoners exonerated after spending years
behind bars is cause for concern.
More needs to be done to ensure innocent people are not executed or
spending decades incarcerated for crimes they did not commit.
The Dec. 21 release of Brandon Moon from prison after DNA tests proved he
wasn't the perpetrator in a 1987 rape reinforces the need for more
innocence projects in Texas.
Currently, only the University of Houston and the University of Texas have
innocence projects that investigate cases of convicts claiming their
innocence.
The programs are staffed by university students and funded with private
donations.
The Houston program used DNA evidence to exonerate Josiah Sutton and got
him released from prison after he served 4 1/2 years of a 25-year sentence
for rape.
It was also instrumental in obtaining the release of James L. Byrd, who
served 5 years for a robbery to which his older brother later confessed.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is pushing for legislation that would
establish innocence projects at each of the 9 law schools in the state.
The appellate judges are on to a good idea.
Given the problems uncovered in the past year with the crime lab run by
Houston police and the fake drug scandal in Dallas, there is a massive
workload waiting to be tackled.
Last legislative session, Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, introduced a bill
to create an Innocence Commission to review alleged wrongful convictions
in the state, but the measure failed.
The legislation is still desperately needed. The proposal for the
innocence programs should not be allowed to meet that same fate.
Funding for any new program is going to be a problem this legislative
session, but that should not be reason to abandon the proposal.
The state should at least provide the seed money to get the programs
going. The schools can do their share by seeking private donations and pro
bono work from the multitude of lawyers in this state to get the job done.
Innocent people should not waste away their lives in prison just because
they don't have the funds and the state cannot afford to help them.
(source: Editorial, San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 7)
**********************
Yates is due nothing but the truth
The Andrea Yates story broke Thursday morning just about the time I was
heading to the office.
As you know, an appeals court overturned her murder conviction in the
drowning of her 5 children.
Well, the timing meant that my drive to work was accompanied by the
instant rant of radio talk-show hosts. And I mean this was like pound dogs
on a fresh bone.
Oh, the growling and snarling that did ensue.
"Idiocy!" proclaimed KRLD's overwrought Mike Gallagher.
In what sounded like a spray of spittle, he compared Mrs. Yates to Susan
Smith, the North Carolina mother who drowned her 2 kids in a phony car
accident so she could hook up with a new guy.
And over on WBAP, well, you just had to hear it to believe it. I'm
referring to Mark Davis' impression of a "truly" mentally ill person.
Not someone a little bit disturbed like Mrs. Yates, mind you.
He was trying to demonstrate just how babbling, bonkers, bark-at-the-moon
crazy a woman would have to be before he would absolve her of killing her
children.
He sure got my vote for temporary on-air insanity.
But I was struck by how completely off the point all these radio dramatics
were.
Now, I didn't sit in my car all morning to listen to the rest of these
talk shows. Maybe sooner or later they actually got around to discussing
the real issue in Thursday's court ruling.
This wasn't about finding the line between evil and insane. This wasn't
about postpartum depression or killing babies. This was about falsehood.
Just a plain old lie, some might say.
In fact, let's try to forget all about Mrs. Yates and her horrible deed
for a moment. Instead, imagine that you have been hauled into court and
accused of a crime. Any crime.
The real question is: How much false testimony should be allowed against
you?
A little bit? A lot? None at all?
I hope the radio talk shows eventually got around to that question. It's a
good one.
And I think the appeals court was exactly right in saying that too much
false testimony was used against Mrs. Yates - and that she deserves a new
trial because of it.
Prosecution psychiatrist Park Dietz testified during the trial that he was
a consultant to the television program Law & Order. And he told jurors
that shortly before the Yates children were killed, Law & Order featured
an episode about a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her
children and was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
In fact, there never was such an episode.
Oops, just an honest mistake, the doctor said later, after jurors had
convicted Mrs. Yates.
Now, if Dr. Dietz had merely mentioned his TV consultant work and a
postpartum episode in passing, that would be one thing. If he had briefly
discussed it as part of his professional background, for example, then
Thursday's ruling would be far-fetched.
But his testimony was used to very specifically plant the idea with jurors
that Mrs. Yates could have gotten her murder plan from the program. Other
testimony brought out that she watched Law & Order.
And in his closing argument to jurors, a prosecutor again mentioned the
nonexistent episode, implying that Mrs. Yates saw it as a way to get out
of her marriage.
There is certainly plenty to discuss on the controversial topics of
insanity defenses and mothers killing children. That's good talk-show
fodder for another day. But it shouldn't distract us from the issue before
the court.
How much false testimony is OK?
I don't know about you, but I'd want to face only the truth and nothing
but the truth.
Of course, the radio talk shows used this court ruling to talk again about
what a terrible mess our courts and our nation are in.
Talk like that sure comes easy.
With a little deeper reflection, we ought to be celebrating again the
wonderful protections built into our justice system.
For me, for you, for Andrea Yates.
(source: Column, Steve Blow, Dallas Morning News)
