Texas may have put innocent man to death, panel told

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MissVelvetDress_75

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Dec 23, 2001
Messages
25,776
Location
basking in my post-concert glow still mesmerized b
[q]Chicago Tribune
Texas may have put innocent man to death, panel told

Wed Apr 20, 9:40 AM ET

By Steve Mills Tribune staff reporter

With Texas' criminal justice system the subject of intense scrutiny for a crime lab scandal and a series of wrongful convictions, a state Senate committee heard testimony Tuesday about the possibility that Texas had experienced the ultimate criminal justice nightmare: the execution of an innocent person.


Fourteen months after Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in the nation's busiest death chamber, a renowned arson expert and Willingham's lawyer told the Senate Criminal Justice Committee that they believed Willingham might have been innocent but found nobody willing to listen to their claim in the days before the execution in February 2004.

"This was a frustrating case, and it was frustrating because it appeared that we could not get anybody to listen," said attorney Walter Reaves, who represented Willingham.

"To say that this case was thoroughly reviewed," Reaves added, "I have my doubts."

The execution of Willingham, convicted of the December 1991 arson fire that killed his three young daughters, was a focus of a hearing into a proposed innocence commission.

Governor's committee

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has, by executive order, set up his own committee. But critics, including state Sen. Rodney Ellis, a longtime advocate of criminal justice reform in Texas, and Barry Scheck, a co-founder of the New York-based Innocence Project, told the senators that to be effective the governor's panel needed to subpoena sworn testimony, obtain documents and seek forensic testing. Ellis, a Houston Democrat, has sponsored legislation to beef up the power of Perry's panel.

"Without subpoena power and the ability to order testing, I don't see how the committee can get to the bottom of these cases," Scheck said after testifying. "I haven't heard of a committee that didn't want all of those things. If you want to find out the truth, you have to have the mechanisms to do it."

A Tribune investigation of the Willingham case last December showed that he was prosecuted and convicted based primarily on arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances--a fact backed up by testimony Tuesday by one of those experts, Gerald Hurst.

According to Hurst and three other fire experts who reviewed evidence in the case at the Tribune's request, the original investigation that concluded the fire was arson was flawed, relying on theories no longer considered valid. It is even possible the fatal fire at the Willingham home in Corsicana, a small town about an hour south of Dallas, was accidental, according to the experts.

Nonetheless, before Willingham died by lethal injection on Feb. 17, 2004, Texas judges and Perry turned aside a report from Hurst in which he questioned the arson evidence and suggested the fire was an accident.

"The state," Hurst testified Tuesday, "needs to take an interest in these matters."

Willingham maintained his innocence until the end. Strapped to a gurney in the death chamber last year, an angry Willingham said: "I am an innocent man, convicted of a crime I did not commit."

The scientific advances that Hurst and the other experts cited in the Willingham case played a role in the exoneration last year of another Texas Death Row inmate, Ernest Willis. Hurst told the Senate committee that the two fires were identical, and that an investigation is needed to determine why Willingham died and Willis lived.

Many prosecutors oppose expanding the power of Perry's committee, called the Criminal Justice Advisory Council. Barry Macha, the district attorney in Wichita County, testified legislators should first give the governor's panel a chance to work as designed.

But that drew a skeptical response from the committee chairman, state Sen. John Whitmire.

Bush role in 2000 case

"The problem is, they're appointed by the governor," Whitmire, also a Democrat from Houston, said of the council's members. "I would almost give them subpoena power and the first time they abuse it, we'll all come back."

Scheck also pointed to the case of Claude Jones, executed in December 2000 for the murder of Allen Hilzendager, who was shot and killed in a 1989 liquor store robbery. In that case, Scheck said, counsel for then-Gov. George W. Bush prepared a recommendation for Bush that did not mention that Jones' request for a 30-day stay of execution was to allow DNA tests to be done on a hair found at the scene. Bush denied the request for a stay.

Last year, the Tribune asked to see the recommendation in the Willingham case to try to determine whether Perry was informed of Hurst's last-minute analysis. But the Tribune's request was rejected by state officials who said the documents are considered confidential.

Scheck told the Senate committee he believed the hair in the Jones case was still in evidence and that an innocence commission with broad powers could seek to test the hair to determine if Jones was guilty. Without that ability, Scheck testified, the commission "would be hampered or powerless in its ability to get to the bottom of this very important case."

----------

smmills@tribune.com

For more on this subject, go to www.chicago tribune.com/willingham [/q]
 
Do Miss America said:
THIS is why there should be no death penalty.

I just knew someone would say this.

That is a hasty fallacy. Just because one crime was mistaken doesn't mean the entire system is wrong.

I am concious how terrible it really is for an innocent person to be executed like that but when a criminal is proven guilty beyond doubt, like Timothy McVeigh for instance, then really capital punishment seems only fair.
 
Anyone can create doubt after the fact. One guy believes that a defendant may have been innocent, any you want to change the criminal justice system?
 
BrownEyedBoy said:


I just knew someone would say this.

That is a hasty fallacy. Just because one crime was mistaken doesn't mean the entire system is wrong.

Didn't say it was wrong just falliable, that's all you need.

As long as there is question you shouldn't be able to sentence someone to something you can't take back like death. I'm sure if you were framed you would agree.
 
You can take back the years of someones life while they are locked in prison wrongfully?
 
Keebler884 said:
You can take back the years of someones life while they are locked in prison wrongfully?

No, but you can give them the last part of their life back. What kind of logic is that to keep the death penalty around for reasons such as "well we can't give them the years they were wrongfully imprisoned back"? :huh:
 
The United States is BABYLON and this kind of stuff just adds to thier heinous crimes against humanity!!!
P.S. I love some American people and used to love visiting the U.S. but the system is completely corrupt now and I'm afraid soon it will become even worse. Sorry.
 
This isn't hard to believe. In my home province of Newfoundland, Canada which only has a population of 500,000 there was an inquiry into three wrongful murder convictions alone. There have also been many high profile wrongful murder convictions in Canada like David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin. So Canada has just as many problems but we don't have capital punishment.

The legal system is flawed to the point that mistakes are made, both intentionally and unintentionally, resulting in wrongful convictions of citizens. The people responsible for these mistakes cover the spectrum of the legal system. Forensic specialists, lawyers, judges, police, witnesses, juries, and experts all contribute to the flaws in the system. I used to support capital punishment but because of the flaws in the legal system, our society should not condemn people to death even if 99 out of 100 are guilty.
 
nbcrusader said:
Anyone can create doubt after the fact. One guy believes that a defendant may have been innocent, any you want to change the criminal justice system?

Can you honestly say that you do not believe that innocent people have been executed?
 
nbcrusader said:
Anyone can create doubt after the fact. One guy believes that a defendant may have been innocent, any you want to change the criminal justice system?

It's not just one person though. How many cases have there been where the person found guilty and in jail for years, even decades, and sometimes on death row, has later been proven to be not guilty? Many. Too damned many to continue to have a death penalty.
 
nbcrusader said:
Anyone can create doubt after the fact. One guy believes that a defendant may have been innocent, any you want to change the criminal justice system?

It wouldn't be the first time someone who is innocent has been murdered in an inhuman quest for revenge by the State, it won't be the last.

The Death Penalty is shameful.
 
melon said:
Our insatiable appetite for revenge will be our undoing someday.

Melon

I'm glad someone said this. It's bloodlust, it's almost as some don't care as long as someone died for the sins of said crime. But why oh why is it always the "religious" ones who speak up so loudly for it? The ones that preach forgiveness and speak about how salvation can even come to the worse humans minutes before they die as long they accept Jesus, these are the ones who want them dead and maybe never give them that chance. It baffles me.

I've almost got to the point of thinking religion is the ultimate enemy of God.
 
Do Miss America said:
Honestly we should go back to if you steal you lose your hand, you lie you lose your tongue.

Haha...Bush would be nothing more than a blind/deaf/mute with no arms and legs.

Melon
 
Do Miss America said:
No, but you can give them the last part of their life back.

Exactly. This is why I support doing away with the death penalty and just going on life imprisonment sentences for people accused of serious crimes like murder or rape or something like that. That way, those who get that sentence but are later found to be innocent can have their jail sentence cleared away and they can therefore go free, and those who are definitely guilty can remain in jail for the rest of their lives.

Angela
 
I do not believe my tax dollars should go towards helping house, feed, and maintain some sort of lifestyle for a prisoner who has committed an extremely horrible crime (e.g. BTK killer). Every heinous crime is not like the Scott Peterson case (verdict based on circumstantial evidence) where IMO the death penalty is too extreme. But there are cases where, without a shadow of a doubt, a person is guilty of having commited multiple murders, etc. Remember the D.C. sniper?

If people want to reform the system so as to make it less likely an innocent man is executed- I'm fine with that. But to abolish capital punishment. I can't agree with it.

It may seem harsh, but when someone goes on and murders several people for the joy of it or out of pure selfishness (alah the DC sniper), then he/ she deserves the "ultimate" punishment. If one is an atheist (or agnostic), I would think that it would piss them off more that a convicted uber-criminal gets to continue to live out the rest of their life rather than experience nothingness now.
 
Last edited:
Do Miss America said:

Right, eye for an eye till we're all blind.:|

Honestly we should go back to if you steal you lose your hand, you lie you lose your tongue.

I don't believe in the extremist view of your example and I doubt many people on the pro-capital punishment side do either. Obviously the problem with your illustration is that punishment may seem too extreme for that specific crime. But is capital punishment too extreme for people alah the DC sniper or a Zarquawi type? Your example, doesn't prove it to be an extreme measure.
 
I think the point everyone is making about the death penalty is that it cannot be made "so as to make it less likely an innocent man is executed". Besides, it should be " so an innocent man is NEVER executed". All of these false convictions were ratified by DAs, prosecutors, juries, judges, etc. Many, many people are involved in the process of convicting a person of murder yet sometimes they are wrong.

Cases are already being qualified for certain punishments like 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter and prosecutors announce they are seeking the death penalty and jurors are asked in selection their views on this topic to find out if they could send a person to their death. Even if you determine whether a certain crime qualifies for capital punishment, the same problems which lead to false convictions still exist. Also, the determination of "without a shadow of a doubt" is subjective. I agree there are some cases in which the evidence appears to be airtight but who and what is the bar by which we judge whether or not such evidence is sufficient for that standard. Isn't that what "beyond reasonable doubt" is meant to do in the legal system? Should they add a new standard which could weaken the concept of reasonable doubt and lead to a whole new defense argument ?
 
Last edited:
I don't believe in the eye for an eye mentality, lenient sentences, or overcrowding prisons. Alternatives to the death penalty need to be discussed, such as more prisons if the death penalty should be abolished.
 
trevster2k said:
. Also, the determination of "without a shadow of a doubt" is subjective. I agree there are some cases in which the evidence appears to be airtight but who and what is the bar by which we judge whether or not such evidence is sufficient for that standard. Isn't that what "beyond reasonable doubt" is meant to do in the legal system? Should they add a new standard which could weaken the concept of reasonable doubt and lead to a whole new defense argument ?

I don't see how "without a shadow of a doubt" is subjective? Should I have said there is "no doubt" instead?

We can only agree to disagree. From what you're saying, you believe no criminal should be executed even if all evidence points to that person (witnesses, dna, fingerprints, confession - hell, lets add video taped evidence). You're saying there still might be a reason that criminal should be let off from being given the death penalty?

I can't agree with that. It just sounds ridiculous to me since the point of this thread was to say that we need to save innocent men from being executed but you're saying even though everything is AIRTIGHT and without a shadow of a doubt, that there is still a possibility he's innocent. Then why have a trial?

I understand reforming the legal system would be difficult, but isn't it worth it to save an innocent people's life while dealing justly with those who have chosen to commit heinous acts?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom