Did Texas execute an innocent man?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.
.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

[UGAalum94]

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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

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.

[UGAalum94]

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

[UGAalum94]

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.)

[deepimpact2]

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.