Waco Criminal Law Blog : Waco Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Walter Reaves Law Firm : DWI, DUI, Drug Crimes, Appeals : Waco, McLennan County, Texas

If you believe Rick Perry he just decided recently he would run for President. Putting aside the question of whether you can ever believe any politician, I think his handling of the Willingham investigation shows he has  planning this for a long time.

Sam Bassett - the first chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission - recently spoke out and provided insight into the maneuverings that led to his dismissal. Bassett was called to the governor's office in February 2009 and questioned about what the commission was doing. The authority to conduct the investigation was questioned, and the governor's assistant general counsel criticized it as a waste of taxpayer money. Bassett indicated he thought they had authority, but said he would do some checking, which he did. What was frustrating to Bassett was that the Attorney General's office was acting as their counsel, and voiced no concern about jurisdiction. The same attorney general's office that recently concluded they had no such jurisdiction.

Bassett was also asked about the motivation behind replacing him with John Bradley, and noted that Bradley not only repeated Perry's description of Willingham as a monster, he also adopted the governor's position on jurisdiction. While admitting he was naive, he now concedes he obvious - which is that Governor Perry was doing everything possible to derail the investigation.

Which brings the question of why he was so concerned. It's doubtful he was concerned about the effects the investigation would have on his future in Texas - that was already solid, and his constituency appears unconcerned with the occasional execution of an innocent person. It might be an issue nationally though - even though it hasn't gotten much traction yet.

So had Perry already made the decision to run in February 2009? It certainly explains his heavy handed action in derailing the Willingham investigation. The question now is what impact that will have on his national persona.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Wednesday afternoon massacre is now history, and the question is what's next for the Texas Forensic Commission. I'm referring to Gov. Perry's decision on Wednesday to replace 3 members of the commission -which included the chairman - two days before they were scheduled to meet and discuss the findings of Dr. Craig Beyler. If you've been on a deserted island for awhile, Dr. Beyler was hired by the commission to review the cases of Cameron Willingham and Ernest Willis. He reached the same conclusion all the other experts had, which was that fire was not inentionally set. Of course if there was no arson, there was no crime. The problem of course is that Cameron Todd Willingham has already been executed. To make things worse, he was executed even though Gov. Perry was furnished with a report from another expert which suggested the fire was not intentionally set.

I've said before that I never had much faith that the forensic commission was going to accomplish anything useful. After all, its a political body, which Gov. Perry so emphatically emphasized by his recent actions. The question now is how the commission is going to deal with the case.

No matter what his public remarks may be (i.e. the "air quotes" around experts), I don't think Gov. Perry is stupid enough to believe that the facts are going to miraculously change. The case has already been reviewed by all the leading experts, and they all reached the same conclusion. For anyone to contradict that now would be suspect to say the least. So I think you have to conclude that at a minimum the testimony that sent to Todd Willingham to his death was completely false.

Grits recently wrote about the question I have always had about this whole process; what can they really do. They aren't going to admit they killed an innocent person, and that is probably beyond the scope of their charge anyway. They could come up with guidelines for using expert testimony, and there certainly is room for improvement there. They could also make a statement about arson science, which I doubt that they will do because of the impact it could have on other cases. Grits suggests they will just take the case off the agenda, and I think he probably has a point.

Realistically, I don't think anyone expects the Governor's hand picked chairman to do anything that puts him in a bad light - especially in the middle of a contested election. There is no way to do anything on this case without doing that.  By keeping the case on the agenda it also keeps it before the general  public. And the more Gov. Perry tries to defend what he did the more he looks like an idiot. The best thing that could happen for him would be for the case to go away. While that might never happen, the next best thing for them would be to stop doing things to draw attention to it.

So my prediction is that the new chairman will take his time, and after the passage of sufficient amount ot time - to convince everyone they fully reviewed the matter - they will vote to remove the case from the commission's agenda. No doubt it will be accompanied by some statement that there are other more important matters for the commission to address that will have more of an impact on future cases. As for the latter statement, there is a lot of truth in it. The way courts handle forensic evidence does need to be overhauled.

I guess time will tell - I'm  not holding my breath for anything to happen soon though.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My office got a call yesterday afternoon telling me the forensic commission meeting scheduled for Friday had been cancelled. Like most I was surprised. The meeting had been scheduled for months, an agenda had been set, and people had made travel arrangements. Later I found out why it was cancelled - Governor Perry decided to replace 3 of the members, including the chairman. The new chair was none other than the prosecution's "go to" guy - John Bradley.

I'm not sure whether Governor Perry thinks everyone is stupid, or he just doesn't care. You would think someone would have pointed out the ramifications of what he was doing. Last week he expressed his belief in Cameron Todd Willingham's guilt, and became the first person to question the expert's conclusions. Now, when Dr. Beyler is scheduled to come discuss the case with them he replaces the chairman, and has them cancel the meeting. Does he truly think anyone does not see this for what it is - an attempt to manipulate the outcome.

Surely he doesn't think this is going to fly under the radar. I can't remember a story that has generated as much coverage as Todd Willingham's. Every day there are several new stories or editorials across the country (and the world) talking about this. Everyone is following it - and now everyone knows what happened, because the cancellation of the meeting is sure to gain just as much press.

I said when they first started looking at this case that I didn't think anything was going to happen. It was a political commission, and I expected politics to influence the ultimate decision. I was as surprised as anyone when Dr. Beyler's report came out. The only person who may have been more surprised was Governor Perry. It obviously didn't turn out the way he wanted, and now he wants to change things. If you don't believe they have already discussed this case you have to believe that Governor Perry believes his new appointee is going to be an advocate of Todd Willingham's guilt.

One thing he did accomplish is to effectively negate the impact of the forensic commission. I don't see how anyone will take seriously anything they do from here on.

When I read the reports last night it reminded of the 6 year old who gets mad and takes his ball so they have to stop the game; if you aren't going to play the way I want we aren't going to play at all. I'm far from politically savvy, but you have to wonder if this may not turn out to be the signature on the Governor's death warrant for his campaign. After all, who wants a Governor who thows tantrums like a 6-year-old?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As criminal defense lawyers we don't always represent the nicest of people. Some of them are difficult to get along, and want to fight you at every step. Many lack basic social skill - that is usually why they are in your office in the first place. Despite all that I generally like almost all of my clients; when you get to the bottom of their problem, it often is an otherwise good person who made a bad decision. Of course, getting to the bottom of things often takes time and effort.

The reason why I started thinking about this arose out of the Cameron Todd Willingham case. Except for a few people, most people who have looked at that case now believe he is innocent. One of those few people is one you would not expect - his trial lawyer. He has described him as a sociopath, and still believes he is guilty. It's pretty clear he didn't like him.

Todd's lawyer is not the first to think his client guilty - although his conduct may be to the extreme. The fact is, most defendants are guilty of something. The truly innocent client is rare, and one most lawyers dread getting because of the enormous burden you carry with you. Even if you know you're client is guilty, that doesn't mean you don't give them the best defense possible. The State already  has a prosecutor aimed at convicting them, and they don't need any help. If you are not prepared to make the State do its job, and do everything you can for your client, you need to do something else; maybe something that doesn't involve people's futures.

Do you have to like your client to effectively represent them? Not necessarily, although its nice when you do. Good criminal defense lawyers are passionate about something else; you can call it justice,  or something else, but they are passionate about making sure the system works, and the letter and spirit of the constitution is put into effect. That is why good lawyers can represent the people who society considers the most reprehensible.

Effectively representing someone means more than knowing the law though. You also have to know your client. There's a reason why they are in the position they are in, and you need to find it. In doing so, you usually discover they are not the person the State is portraying them to be. And yes, you might even start to like them.

It always find  it odd that people who are fond of saying "hate the sin, love the sinner" don't apply that to criminal defendants. Society, with a lot of help from the prosecutor, is quick to jump all over something who does something bad. Their lawyer shouldn't do the same; they have a story to tell, and its the lawyer's job to tell. You don't have to like what they did - there's probably something wrong with you if you do - but you do have to find the reason why did it. Hopefully its something other than that they are sociopath.

So you don't have to like your client, but it helps if you do. After all, it is you and him (or her) against the government.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I hate to question a good thing - the saying "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" comes to mind. But Over the last week I have been amazed at the coverage being given to Cameron Todd Willingham. You can't skim the blogs or the newspapers without seeing some discussion of the case. (For a great collection of the coverage see Grit's recent post) I'm glad people are looking at this issue - I only wonder why it wasn't done earlier.

Todd Willingham's story of an innocent man being executed based on junk science is not new. Steve Mills and Maurice Posely were the first to cover the case. The two veteran Chicago Tribune reporters were the first to cover the case - in 2004. Their story concluded that Willingham was probably executed for an accidental fire. The story got some coverage in the national media, but nothing close to what the current coverage is. The New York based innocence project was also aware of the case; they seized upon the similarities between Willingham's case and that of Ernest Willis. Although the cases were almost identical, the result was not. Willis was freed - with the help of the prosecutor - while Willingham was executed. The Innocence Project solicited the leading arson experts in the world to review the case. They released their report in 2006; their conclusion - the fire was not intentionally set, and the testimony used to obtain the conviction was nothing more than a collection of myths and "old wives tales."  This report received a little more traction, largely because of the connections of the Innocence Project. However, it quickly died out.

One thing the report did accomplish though was that it pushed the State of Texas into action. The Forensic Commission was created, and the first subject studied was the Willingham and Willis cases. Even though they had a  report from a panel of leading experts, the commission went out and hired their own expert. Not surprisingly (or perhaps surprisingly for some) the state's expert came back with the same conclusion reached by the panel - the fire was nothing more than an accident. At the same time - not by design because I know the reporter had been working on this for several months - the New Yorker article came out. The combination of the two led to the almost daily discussion now about this case, and what happens next.

My question is why wasn't this a story back in 2004, or at least 2006? You cannot estimate what impact an earlier discussion would have had on views about the death penalty, as well as arson investigations. So while we are debating what happens next, maybe we should also be considering why we weren't talking about this earlier.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link