So now What?
The Texas Forensic Science Commission finished - at least for now - their review of the Cameron Todd Willingham case. The commission chairman - John Bradley - successfully discharged his duty, which was to derail any inquiry into the innocence of Willingham. He was able to do so by seeking an attorney general opinion on the scope of their jurisdiction. His heavy handed tactics backfired in part though, as the commissioners staged a mini-revolt last year. The result of that was a hearing on Thursday and Friday.
While they did not make a determination on innocence, they did something far more significant. They acknowledged that arson science had evolved over the years, and prior convictions may be in question. Review of those cases was suggested, although the scope of such review was not set forth. This is exactly what many - me included - have been requesting for years.
The task is daunting, since there may be thousands who have been convicted on faulty testimony. The first question is no doubt going to be who is responsibility for reviewing the case. In my opinion, it clearly should not be the State fire marshall's office. They have clearly demonstrated they are not competent to conduct such an investigation, since they still refuse to admit the testimony in Willingham was faulty. Scott Henson suggested the attorney general's office, and that would at least be a better choice than the State Fire Marshall.
One of the fundamental concepts of due process is that the State must disclose exculpatory evidence; that obligation should continue even after a defendant is convicted. If that is true, then the prosecutors who obtained the convictions have an obligation to review them. They should have records of those they have prosecuted for arson, and at a minimum notify those defendants or their lawyers.
I would certainly expect the Innocence Project to have a role, and no doubt they will assist in some cases - as they are already doing. Resources are tight though, and unless they State is willing to fund a full review, the burden should be on the state.
I sincerely hope this is a first step. Time will time how many people have been convicted on faulty testimony.
It seemed to me the Beyler Report confirmed the Hurst report so Perry felt threatened and appointed Bradley to stall it. I have accused him and Bradley with obstruction of justice ever since then. I felt the responsibility fell squarely on the governor's shoulders.
Now people are presenting me with things like this:
"Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Mr. Perry, said that on the night of the execution, the governor's general counsel thoroughly briefed him on the report of the arson expert and various appellate court decisions. He denied the reprieve, she said, because the courts all agreed that the Hurst report was no more than an opinion and did not merit reopening the case.
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
Published: October 19, 2009
Controversy Builds In Texas Over Execution"
My question is this: What courts agreed? I've thought this was a convenient fiction created in the governor's office but today I received this:
"I saw the actual denial of the last-minute appeal as part of a records request I filed to the governor’s office. I did not keep the records, but you can contact the fifth circuit.
Lise Olsen
Investigative Reporter
The Houston Chronicle
713-362-7462
It seems to me that you, of all people, should know. What's your take on all this? What do you know about last minute appeals?