In September, Texas Governor Rick Perry was scared to death that the Texas Forensic Science Commission was about to denounce the questionable science used to convict and execute Cameron Todd Willingham. So the governor hastened the departure of several board members while appointing board members (like the aggressively conservative prosecutor John Bradley) who were favorable to his side of the Willingham debate.
No one could believe that a sitting Governor could manipulate the composition and priorities of a state commission with such shocking audacity.
He’s getting away with it.
According to an AP story, when the commission reconvenes this evening, “The Willingham case is not on the agenda . . . Nor is Craig Beyler, the renowned fire expert who authored the report in question”.
According to Barry Scheck, co-director of the New York-based Innocence Project that focuses on overturning wrongful convictions, this is “an agenda that deflects attention from what everybody wants answered.”
But is anybody paying attention? In September, the Willingham story was national news; now it’s just an afterthought. By this summer, when chairman Bradley insists they will finally evaluate the forensic science utilized in the Willingham case, will any one care?
The Willingham case played a minor role in the hotly-contested Texas Republican primary back in September, but Kay Bailey Hutchison, Perry’s most prominent opponent, has largely dropped the subject. That’s likely a good move. Evidence suggesting that the state of Texas executed an innocent man isn’t welcome in the conservative slice of the electorate Hutchison and Perry are wooing.
The Willingham case demonstrates the need to move beyond a single-minded focus on actual innocence cases. Willingham may have set the fire that killed three of his children; or he may be as innocent as he always claimed. But was the evidence the state of Texas used in the case, properly evaluated, sufficient for a conviction? Or did a state prosecutor employ junk science to mislead the jury?
Willingham’s guilt or innocence shouldn’t be the issue in this case. If junk science was used to convict Willingham, we’ve got a problem.
Too often, advocacy groups look only for cases where innocence can be empirically demonstrated. When DNA evidence proves a convicted man is innocent, no one dispute that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. DNA-innocence cases have made important contributions to the reform fight. They have demonstrated that far more defendants are wrongfully convicted than most Americans thought possible. They have shown that misguided and coerced witness testimony is the number-one culprit in wrongful convictions. Finally, these cases have shown that people of color are disproportionately victimized by wrongful conviction.
But our infatuation with actual innocence comes at a price. For one thing, there aren’t a lot of DNA cold cases in the pipeline. The exoneree torrent will soon slow to a trickle.
Secondly, in the 85% of criminal cases that involve no meaningful DNA evidence, it is virtually impossible to prove actual innocence. We know wrongful convictions are widespread, but apart from a DNA smoking gun, we have a hard time proving it.
Finally, DNA cases raise more questions than they can answer. They show that some species of racism is at work in the justice system, but they can’t tell us what kind. The dynamics of prejudice hasn’t been traced.
That’s why the future lies with cases like Tulia, Todd Willingham, Troy Davis and Curtis Flowers. If we simply use these cases as a soapbox for our pet opinions little of value will be gained. But if we sift and dissect these narratives with objective persistence, patterns will emerge and lessons will be learned.
Friends of Justice 
I find it hard to believe that this whole sorted mess has not taken Perry out of contention for re-election. Perhaps it’s too early. At the very least Perry’s actions in this case consitute obstruction of justice. If Mr. Willingham was executed although he was innocent I contend it was not the first time. Actual innocence absent DNA is indeed hard, if not in Texas at least impossible. However, where has the interest gone. Certainly it has continued to resonate with me. That is what makes it even more problematic that others don’t seem to care. Someone else will handle it.
Sharon Keller’s refusal to keep the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals open past 5:00 may have cost a man his life. The public is sure it will all work out. No, it WILL NOT! Citizens need to get involved in these issues. You never know when that name in the paper will be yours or someone you love. Stand up people.
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Barry Goldwater
SIXX is right. It will not work out without citizens standing up and screaming until they get the attention of powers that be. Perry and Bradley are determined that the screams will not be heard until at least after the election. And Bradley to date is succeeding in muzzling his commission on forensic science. See the “Grits for Breakfast” post for today. Grits is a blog by Scott Henson, criminal justice activist associated with the Innocence Project until IP went broke courtesy of Madoff. Post is copied below.
GRITS FOR BREAKFAST
SATURDAY, JANUARY 30, 2010
Hectoring approach works for John Bradley at Forensic Science Commission, for now
If I were a Forensic Science Commissioner who’d gone to Harlingen for yesterday’s meeting, I’d be pretty darn grumpy at my chairman today for:
• Usurping power from commissioners: Bradley refused to put “action items” on the agenda that were designated in the minutes from the last meeting.
• Hijacking the meeting agenda: The chairman arrived in Harlingen with a detailed set of “rules” that were never authorized by the commission and insisted they focus on them exclusively.
• Concealing key activities from commissioners: Most FSC members were never told the chair was drafting rules nor did they authorize him to do so. They were first informed of the rules’ existence and given a draft the day before the meeting.
• Wasting commissioners’ time: After spending all day on “rules,” the chairman revealed at the end of the meeting that the commission had no rulemaking authority, announcing that these were only voluntary “guidelines” representing an informal agreement that is “not even enforceable on ourselves.”
• Ignoring “process”: Though the Commission historically operated under Robert’s Rules, Bradley ran the meeting on a “consensus” basis, which removed limits on the chair, obfuscated members’ right to control the process, and allowed Bradley to railroad through his agenda.
• Dissembling: When a commissioner told the chairman her vote hinged on whether old cases already in the pipeline – including ones where the Commission had already paid outside consultants (there are only two) – would be subjected to the new committee process, Bradley said no, they would not. After the vote, when the meeting had nearly ended, Bradley insisted that Willingham’s case must go through “part of” the new committee process. If he’d been honest about that during the debate, IMO a majority of commissioners present wouldn’t have supported his rules.
That was really quite a display. I’ll give him this. John Bradley came into Harlingen with an agenda; he was on his A-game when other commissioners were back on their heels and didn’t know what to expect; and as a result he got what he wanted out of the meeting: Delay discussing anything substantive about flawed forensic science and a new “process” in which he can bury the Willingham case in committee until after the November election.
It was a pretty brazen performance, but judging by minimalist MSM media coverage, the Williamson County DA clearly made a good bet that – by moving the meeting to the Rio Grande Valley on a Friday and waiting to produce the rules until the last minute – he would get away with such bold hectoring of the commission. It’s not a great start to Bradley’s relationship with his fellow commissioners, but he’s obviously not there to make friends. He’s there to delay the commission’s work and to impede the Willingham investigation by hook or by crook. And he’s succeeding.