Did Texas execute an innocent man?
 

CORSICANA – Texas might be on the verge of admitting it executed an innocent man who was tried, sentenced and put to death based on faulty forensics, according to a recent report commissioned by the Texas Forensic Science Commission.

It centers on a crime this city, an hour south of Dallas, can't forget.

"I've been doing law enforcement for approximately 37 years and this is one of the worst scenes I've ever seen," remembered Sgt. Jimmie Hensley of the Corsicana Police Department.

In December 1991, a fire swept through Cameron Todd Willingham's small home.

He escaped but his three young daughters did not.

Full Story


Very interesting. I wonder if this will have any effect on the state's stance on the death penalty (probably not).

Won't have any effect. My father did a murder case a while back. Got the conviction reversed on appeal and subsequently got an acquittal on the retrial.

I'm against the death penalty for a variety of reasons. Mostly though, because it's not handed out on what I perceive to be an equal or fair basis, i.e., more likely to be given to racial minorities and people of lower socio-economic status.

I look at it like this -- if they couldn't put Terry Nichols to death [co-conspirator for the OKC bombing], then pretty much no one else matches up. Not even close.

Not even Ted Bundy?

I'm ambivalent about the death penalty; like you said above it is handed out with a fair amount of bias, and is it really up to people to determine whether someone lives or dies?

I know, however, that the elimination of the death penalty would not be looked upon too favorably in Texas, as well as the Southern states. In certain parts of the country, it is here to stay.

It won't make a difference. It SHOULD make a difference, but it WON'T make a difference.

The death penalty is one of "those issues" - people have their minds pretty much made up by age 20, if not younger, and it's rare that those opinions ever change for the rest of their lives no matter what.

So this part of Texas might have executed an innocent man, but my part of Texas won't execute a guilty man pretty much days before he was suppose to be, because NOW he claims he's mentally retarded.

I seriously hope that a judge realizes this man is totally competent (although he has a wide array of mental health issues....retardation not one of them) so that he can be executed. No wonder he wants a judge from outside El Paso to take his case.

Am I missing something in the article?

I don't see anything that actually proves the guy's innocence, just something that suggests that forensic evidence might have been more faulty than previously thought.

It may create doubt for us, but maybe less so for the jury, since we don't really know why they convicted. We also don't know, based on anything we read here, I don't think, that the guy didn't start the fire and leave it to burn, even if he didn't use an accelerant.

I have mixed feeling about the death penalty, but "proving innocence" after conviction seems kind of complicated. I don't have any sense what other evidence other than the forensics were part of the prosecution here. What motive do people ever have to kill their kids?

Yeah, I've always wondered about that.

I support the death penalty for some crimes, not because I believe in retribution but because some people are bad for Civilization. Like serial killers, pedophiles, etc. Counciling and rehabilitation never/rarely work so just put the sick bastards out of their misery so that way at least they can't rape or kill any more people.

Kevin, I agree with you sort of. What if it's a serial killer who's been proven guilty? You don't think he/she should be put to death?

Should he be? Sure... he probably ought to be thrown to the lions or committed to some other sort of cruel sort of punishment.

But what you're talking about when you're talking about putting a man to death are thousands of man-hours of appeals both in terms of lawyers' time and judges' time. Time that IMHO, would be better spent elsewhere.

You're also talking about separate holding facilities, actual costs of executions, etc.

It's far cheaper to keep these prisoners for life than it is to put them to death because of all of these costs surrounding the death penalty. It's not like it has any redeeming qualities like preventing further homicides, etc.

My father's stepfather sat on the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals (the state's final appellate court for criminal cases). He once opined that the one thing he knew about the death penalty is that once it's administered, the recidivism rate was zero. Perhaps there's something to that, but as far as I can tell, its' just not worth it.

For people who want to learn more about the story, I believe The New Yorker published an extensive article on the subject. It goes into a lot of detail on how the expert came to his opinion, and why the process may have been flawed.

Agreed - I'm also against the death penalty, but I don't see this story making any difference in the way it's administered.

But that's the point - if the reliability of the evidence creates a greater doubt as to the defendant's guilt, that's a big deal. Remember too, it's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it's the prosecution's burden to prove that (not the defendant's burden to refute it). If the scientific evidence was faulty, then that's a big problem....big enough to throw the whole result into question.

That said, again, I agree with Kevin that this case isn't going to make any difference.

I am against the death penalty in all instances for many reasons, including the one cited by Kevin. Additionally, I don't think it's up to humans to decide when other living, breathing, healthy humans should die. In doing so, I think we violate the same basic human rights that the murderer violated in the first place. Further, I think our penal system serves two purposes, the first being rehabilitation (if possible) and the second being keeping the general society safe from people who are dangerous. I don't really see it useful as a form of "punishment". The death penalty has been shown NOT to deter crime, so it is not useful in that regard. If someone did see the penal system as a means of punishment, then I would argue that I believe that being in isolation in prison for decades is far more punishing than giving the easy out of death. Perhaps that's because I have no fear of death. I have fear of a long, slow, suffering leading to death, but no fear of actually being dead. From a religious viewpoint, if the person has remorse in their heart, then God would forgive them and they'd end up in heaven earlier. If they didn't, they'd be going to Hell and what's a few decades on earth in isolation in a prison compared to eternity in Hell? Just a mere flash of time, relatively. And, if even one innocent person is killed, what are the ramifications for the people responsible for that murder? For those who argue that it's too expensive to house criminals for life in that manner, the reality is that it's even more expensive for those on death row because of the appeals, etc. Some argue there should not be appeals allowed, but that increases the risk of innocents being killed. I'd rather see us err on the side of caution in that regard.

I realize that's not a popular viewpoint and I realize that it also would conflict with believing that war is ever ok. And, I can honestly say that I struggle with that one a lot. It seems there are times that there is no other way to stop someone like Hitler from harming more and more people so it does seem to outweigh the consequences in that instance, only because the number of people involved in doing the crimes are so large that you couldn't arrest them all peacefully. I see it more as self defense or protecting someone weaker from certain death when there is absolutely no other way to do it.. a last resort, so to speak. I do have similar concerns about innocents being killed and I am very disturbed by all wars, even those that I understand are necessary. It creates a strong inner conflict for me between what I know is logical and my personal ethics and feelings.

Sure if we knew that the jury relied heavily on the forensic evidence in reaching their decision, it would be a big deal. I've only read the linked article, and it doesn't say much. ETA: and, assuming that we just going on the original article here: wouldn't you say that the burden of proof shifts quite a bit post conviction? At that point, a jury has decided guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the convicted person has to establish that the new evidence would have yielded a different outcome, right?

Sometimes the forensic evidence is just one component of a much larger case. Problems with it alone doesn't really "prove innocence" unless that was all there was to the case or if what was faulty about it actually makes it impossible for the crime to have been committed as prosecuted.

The linked article in this thread doesn't really get it there.

ETA: the New Yorker article outlines a whole lot more wrong with this case and points to the validity of the title of the tread, but it says a whole lot more than just the original forensics being wrong: incompetent original defense, lying jailhouse snitches, indifferent/incompetent/negligent appeals and clemency board, etc.

"Despite what the state decides, justice has already been carried out."

i really dislike this statement. if he's innocent, then what justice? and does anyone know what would happen if it does turn out that the state did use faulty evidence?

Well, the standard for post-conviction relief is still less than it is for the original conviction...it's either a "preponderance of the evidence" standard (which is essentially greater than 50% chance that it's true) or "clear and convincing" standard (that it's substantially more likely than not that it's true). Both of those are lower standards than the "reasonable doubt" one utilitzed in the original conviction.

So, either way, the defendant doesn't have to show as much for post-conviction relief as the prosecution does in the original case.

The thing is, though, I think you're minimizing the importance of the scientific evidence. I've learned quite a bit about burn pattern analysis in my current job, and from what I understand in reading the article, the expert essentially said that the burn patterns were similar to those one would find in an arson case.

Practically speaking, the jury is going to put a lot of stock in an expert, especially in a case as emotionally-charged as this one. You're correct in that (as the New Yorker story points out) there were a ton of issues with the original defense. However, that should not minimize the effect of the scientific testimony on its own.

I was just going by the original linked article, which didn't seem to suggest that much about how important the errors in the testimony were. Knowing more about the case, the errors do seem pretty significant, especially considered with other factors.

I just think the language of "an innocent man" is pretty problematic once someone has been convicted, in the absence of a new trial or an exoneration.

We can wonder mainly if the charges ever would have been brought without the original determination of the fire investigator in this case, especially. Once that determination was made, all the other evidence seemed to fall into place. Witnesses saw his behavior differently; you had the jailhouse collaboration of what he had admitted to, etc.


This case isn't particularly a good example of the issue I'm going to mention, but I think there's a little bit of a problem with treating convictions as if they are still open cases long after the fact. Once twenty years have gone by, I think there's a tendency for almost everyone involved to kind of forget the victims of the original crime and solely have interest in believing in the innocence of the prisoner. Obviously, I'm not saying that I don't believe in appeals; simply that some skepticism about new evidence or new claims or recanted testimony might be a good thing in a lot of cases, assuming that our intention isn't just to make lasting conviction impossible.

If we didn't have the death penalty, obviously the stakes would be lower.

From my experiences with the criminal justice system and research I've done, I would have to strongly disagree with the bolded statement. It seems like you're taking a few highly-public cases, and assuming that it correlates to a high percentage of these types of appeals. Plus, it underestimates the presence of victim advocates services, etc.

A couple of other things with this:

1) I think you're vastly over-estimating the amount of post-conviction challenges that take place. Look at the numbers for convictions per state and nationwide, then look at the number taken on by organizations like the Innocence Project and similar state programs (which I think you're referencing when you talk about post-conviction investigations). When you look at the numbers, you see that lasting convictions are in fact possible.

2) It seems like you're advocating a neater, cleaner criminal process at the expense of defendant's post-conviction rights. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but no matter the freshness of the conviction (i.e. whether it was last year or 20 years ago), if there are problems with the investigation or proceedings, those should be investigated (if at all possible).

3) There are mechanisms in the system that make lasting convictions (if pursued in the correct manner) possible. Defendants aren't going to have a right to never-ending appeals - the higher courts aren't obligated to take certain appeals. At some point, the process ends.

Look, I get what it's like to be on the other side of the coin, being the victim while the defendant takes every available avenue in the process. Still, I'd rather see the process played out fully and fairly, in accordance with the Constitution, even if it means some negatives for the victims and their families.

A little bit, yes, but the stakes would still be high. For anyone who is curious, I would highly recommend taking the opportunity to visit a maximum security prison for violent offenders, etc. I think it can give a good idea of the stakes post-conviction, even if you're not talking about putting someone on death row.

As of now I don't even know WHERE I stand on the death penalty. I know I definitely no longer feel it is a deterrent. I think my feelings became less solid when the whole Tookie Williams situation came up.

You're right; I'm responding to the high profile cases. In these, it frequently seems that the general public and celebrities will jump in on behalf of prisoners while never really looking at the original case much at all.

As I said before, I'm not trying to limit appeals.


I just think the rest of us should avoid thinking questions being raised equals innocence.

ETA: I'm not talking about what burden of proof at trial should be required initially either. But the Tookies and Mumias of the world and their advocates shouldn't be taken purely at their word post conviction.

EATA: I was focusing the the death penalty because I do think there's a systematic effort to discredit it, maybe rightly so, and so even the smallest question about a case may get raised in the public mind to be "proof" of innocence. Maybe, maybe not, but we have a system in place to deal with it, unless, like we seem to have in this Texas case, the entire system fails. And when the entire system fails, maybe it doesn't make sense to lay the fault on early forensic testimony. The guy mention in the OP didn't die only because the prosecution fire expert wasn't really a fire expert.

Agreed to an extent - I think the death penalty is something like abortion, where people can easily jump in with highly-charged opinions without a whole lot of background knowledge on the subject.

As I've said on the board before, I generally hate it when celebrities jump in on ANY public policy issue. It bothers me that their opinions are given any additional validity than any other member of the public.

I think I'm coming at this from a different starting point - while I'll agree that to some people, these types of stories automatically equal innocence, I think there are also a good number of us who understand that's not the case. To us, the significance is that it shows that there may have been a shoddy process, and that's a problem.

I generally don't like the Monday morning quarterbacking on trials (criminal or civil). Those outside of the trial teams don't know the thought processes of the attorneys, and decisions that seem silly in hindsight may have made sense at the time of trial.

The forensic testimony shouldn't take the whole blame...but it seems to have been part of the problem. In that regard, it can't really be ignored.

Huh? How is it cheaper to keep them for life? What if a person is given the death penalty, and that death penalty that was given, is appealed through the courts for 30-40 years? Because that's what always seems to take place. Kevin, I'm not talking about "life" in prison, because that could possibly be 1/3 of the actual sentence as opposed to life in prison without parole. So, I'm talking about life in prison without parole. Kevin, you know more than I do, but I'm asking. How would that be cheaper? I'm guessing (depending on the state) it probably cost the tax payer about $50,000 to $60,000 dollars per year per inmate, so why not just use the death penalty for those who are not getting out of prison and assess the penalty of death at the time sentencing without appeal? It's just that I can't see how keeping them in prison could possibly be cheaper. I just think that doing it this way would just eliminate a bad person from society, and it would also save money that could be used somewhere else.

I think that people forget that sometimes what the public knows isn't what was presented to the jury, often times for compelling reasons. Generally, I think, this kind of evidence being excluded favors the accused, but when there's a everything-but-the-kitchen sink standard outside the courtroom, it's kind of no wonder that legal outcomes are different than what the public thinks should have happened, particularly when people fail to be convicted of crimes that the public seems to believe they committed.

Unrelated to anything in this thread particularly, I do wonder if we aren't moving toward finding that it's really hard to prove guilt if we look at conviction being indicative of guilt rather than the outcome of more compelling theater than the defense put on.

Forensic evidence is more frequently discredited, and eye witness testimony and identification are almost ridiculously faulty. I tend to think that a successful prosecution is going to involve elements of multiple forms of "proof" but if we can later revisit the case and regard the failure of any part to call the whole thing into question, which as KSigKid notes might be a good thing in terms of the rights of the accused, we're going to have to devote more resources to giving the state the ability to re-investigate, store and re-test evidence.
(I don't mean double-jeopardy stuff; but if it's still up for more review, it doesn't make a lot of sense to leave prosecutors in the position of trying only to re-try the original case if more evidence might now exist.)

It's the appeals process that kicks in with death sentences that make them that much more expensive, I'm pretty sure.

That and the initial expense of the trials is higher, I'm pretty sure as well.

Right. So why even have one?

Because a great many Americans are concerned about executing an innocent person or are concerned about executing someone without due process.

On a perverse level, I bet the deterrent effect of the death penalty might go way up if a lot more people were summarily executed immediately after conviction but you'd have to do it on a massive scale. You think it would be worth it, Cheerfulgreek?

That works great in China. Used to (still does?) work well in Russia. Completely stopped all of their crime.

-- no wait.. it didn't.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm

http://nwitimes.com/news/local/porte...8e2af87c0.html

Here are a couple of counter-examples to that. The idea that every death sentence appeal takes 30-40 years is a misconception.

So what would happen if the sentence is wrong? Does the increase in efficiency outweigh the problems with such an approach?

Did anyone say it would completely stop it?

And you may have actually made my point for me about Russia. Do you have the impression that crime is up or down under a less oppressive, or at least differently oppressive government?

ETA: actually this might be pretty hard to judge. But my impression is that criminal enterprise is up in Russia compared to when it was part of the USSR.

I'm not in favor of them, but I do think that completely oppressive governments have less street crime.

EATA: Actually, I have no idea. I had kind of forgotten about the large number of governments that manage to be that amazing combination of really oppressive and completely dysfunctional, unlike how I think of China and the former Soviet Union, which are/were oppressive and controlling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate


up to 1999

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_rate_to_1999

That presents a comparison between a Soviet total and a Russian total, but who knows what part of the Soviet total was based on the geographic area limited to Russia.

Then I guess I don't get your point. Are you trying to argue in favor of immediate execution upon conviction?

Nope. I was just acknowledging that this kind of oppression might have an upside to Cheerfulgreek.

It's not one that would be worth it to me.

Kevin seemed to suggest that China and Russia previously had dabbled in similarly oppressive policies without seeing those results, and I think he's wrong about that.

ETA: I'm not a fan of China's policies, and I'm not sure if any reported crime rates from the governments have any foundation in reality at all. However, I suspect that their crime rates would be much higher without their oppressive judicial policies. Similarly, caning the bejesus out of people may help keep the graffiti down in Singapore.

I don't want to see similar policies in the US and condemn China, USSR, and Singapore for having them, but they may in fact affect crime rates.

ETA: Similarly, I bet you could bend speeding rates down to about zero if the officer just shot people at the side of the road. I'm not in favor, but I think it would "work".

Although due process is an American legal entity, my debate is centered around the individual caught in the act of committing the crime. As an example, Sir Han Sir Han was caught in the act of killing Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968. His sentence of death was commuted to life in prison without parole. He's been in prison for over 41 years, which has been costing the tax payer a ton money, and to my knowledge Sir Han Sir Han did not, has not, and will not contribute anything that will benefit society. He's just eating, sleeping, reading, and can even (if not already) receive the highest level of education that exist (a PhD) and FOR FREE, which can't even be utilized anywhere. My position in terms of capitol punishment was centered around a person who is absolutely guilty with 100% accuracy of committing the crime, that at sentencing be taken directly from the courtroom to the gallows, and the sentence be immediately carried out. That would really deter crime, and doing it this way is what I call "due process".:) However, I do believe in due process when an alleged crime has been committed and new evidence may eventually appear that will exonerate the person accused.

To my knowledge Russia and China don't have a very high crime rate, at least not like it is here. When did I say it would completely stop all crime? I didn't. That's impossible anywhere. What I was implying was that it could deter crime. I just think it should be an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.

Again, I'm talking 100% accuracy. Like the DC sniper for example. He ran out of appeals and as far as I know, his death sentence will be carried out next month. How long ago did this happen? 7 years ago? We all know he's guilty, and 7 years later his sentence is being carried out based on the original evidence. So based on that, that 7 year period has been a complete waste of time and tax payer money, and the only people who benefit from this particular case are lawyers, and now they will proceed in seeking similar cases $$$$$$$$......:rolleyes:

The Manson Family (proven guilty), John Wayne Gacy (proven guilty) Ted Bundy (proven guilty) Jeffrey Dahmer (proven guilty) David Berkowitz (proven guilty) and you literally think these monsters should have had an appeal process???

China and Russia were brought up and I'm going to add Japan to that same list. Why is it that there are twice as many engineers and scientists in those countries than there are lawyers? as opposed to twice as many lawyers in the United States as there are engineers and scientists? $$$$$$$.....:rolleyes: Most, if not all of our missile control systems and technology are built in Japan. Hmmm I wonder why. All I'm saying is this country needs to find a better way to deter crime.

I understand that you and Kevin are preparing to become lawyers, and I think that's great, but this is a topic that we will have to disagee on. There just needs to be a better more effective way to deter crime in the United States. That's all I'm saying.

Sure crime is lower in China and Russia then it is here, but both those countries also are known for having very oppressive policing systems. Even Japan is a lot less free then we are. If you are unfortunate enough to go to trial in Japan, the conviction rate is something like 90 percent. There has to be a balance between freedom and suppression of crimes.

Russia's murder rate is over 4 times ours as well as being a major source and destination country for drugs and human trafficking. Maybe they have a higher rate of property crime, etc., but remember, crime rates only consist of reported crimes, and I'm just going to go out on a limb here and suggest that as much as no one trusts the police over there, most crimes go unreported except for murder which is rather difficult to hide.

As for China, no one really knows. The government there filters all data released to the public.

Bad examples.

Do you know that it would deter crime, though? I mean, as Kevin said, it seems like nations like the USSR still had comparable crime rates with an expedited execution process. I'm just skeptical of whether it would truly deter crime.

Put in a more practical sense - do you think a guy who is about to commit a murder is thinking about the appeals process?

You realize that a lot of these appeals are taken pro se, right? As in, the lawyer isn't getting paid for their work. That, or it's a public defender doing the work for low pay. These cases take up a lot of hours, with relatively little pay (hint: remember what Kevin said about the socioeconomic backgrounds of those on death row...are they going to be able to pay high fees for attorneys?).

It's incorrect to assume that all of these appeals are taken by fat cat lawyers filling their pockets.

I understand many people don't like lawyers, but I have no idea what the bolded part has to do with your argument. If you think that more kids should grow up to be scientists, or that lawyers don't add as much to society, that's a totally different argument.

As I said above, a lot of these appeals are being taken pro se or by the appeals branches of public defenders' offices. For example, my state (Connecticut) has an appellate division of the Office of the Public Defender. Those guys aren't running up billable hours on these files, and they're not being paid much for the number of hours that they're working on these appeals.

Again, for the most part, the lawyers who are taking these cases aren't greedy lawyers trying to run up billable hours and high incomes.

No one is telling you that you have to agree with us. What we are saying is that we disagree with you, and we are giving you our reasons why. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that we have to give up our arguments.

Here's a little anecdote that might help with some of the "deterrent" stuff, because it is kind of counterintuitive at first blush . . .

My research indicates that about 80% of people think they are better than average at determining when a person is lying. About 75% of people think they are less likely than average to be taken advantage of by an insurance company during a claims experience.

People think they are better at, well, everything than they really are. This is a pernicious and consistent effect. Criminals expect they are smarter than the 'average' criminal, and thus less likely to be caught - and that's when they're even examining the risk/reward axis, which generally doesn't happen. Now, combine this with a social science phenomenon known as the "Fundamental Attribution Error," which says that people are unfortunately driven to ascribe actions of an individual to some internal characteristic of that person, rather than to temporal or situational effects, and it's easy to paint a criminal with a broad brush and say "they simply don't fear the punishments enough - let's put the fear of God into them, and they'll get it!" Sometimes, it's even simpler.

Fair enough.

KSigkid, I understand what you're saying is true by the judicial elements established by our constitution. I understand that, I just disagree with that portion of the law. I simply believe that those people who commit crimes of this nature (such as the Manson Murders) should be executed at the time of sentencing.

No, I don't believe that if someone was committing murder that they would be thinking about an appeal process. However, I do believe if it was an "eye for an eye" they would certaintly think twice before committing a crime.

OJ is a perfect example of what I perceive as someone who has committed not one, but TWO murders and was not convicted. (I hate him) Most of the evidence at the trial as I view it pointed to his guilt, hence, a very good example of "money" talks and BS walks. In other words, in this country, poor people don't get away with the crime, rich people do and this so unfortunate but yet so true.

"If it doesn't fit you must acquit" whatever...:rolleyes: That glove is a good example of an element that there was a quirk in that trial. The glove that Johnny Cochran used had been soaked in water for a week and when it came time for OJ to try the glove on it didn't fit. And with OJ being an actor, he totally exaggerated trying to put on the glove that didn't fit.

KSigkid, I respect your opinion and Kevin's too, but you stated the facts as they should be, but not as they are....

So is your argument now that the death penalty, and convictions in general, are skewed based on the wealth of the defendant? If so, wouldn't that make for an even stronger argument against expedited executions?

In other words, if the poor are getting a shoddy defense, don't you think that's something that should be sorted out and reviewed before someone spends significant time in prison?

Also, the OJ case is a tough example for a number of reasons...if you're going to blame anyone for that case, you should probably start with the prosecution.

(Plus, not to get into a whole debate about OJ, but isn't there some disagreement about whether the gloves were soaked in water? Unless you have some inside info about the trial...)

What facts did I state in that manner?

I will say that I completely agree with this statement. When you a person who is mostly definitely--beyond a shadow of a doubt--guilty of committing the murder or (like Manson) being the 'mastermind' I believe that once the verdict is rendered that they should immediately be put to death. Why spend any more money on a person like that?

Every person who is convicted of murder is, technically, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

How do you define this stricter standard, and how do you enforce it, and who decides when/how to enforce it, and ... ?

This brings up the question of what exactly constitutes a reasonable doubt. Also isn't part of the appeals process to see if a convicted felon is actually remorseful and reformed. Somebody brought up the case of Tookie Williams, which is a good example. No one can deny he was guilty of what he was charged with. But he was also generally remorseful and attempted to atone for what he did. Wasn't he even nominated for the Nobel Peace Price for his actions after he was imprisoned?