Fear and Loathing in Las Texas

Rick Perry loathes Cameron Todd Willingham:

"Willingham was a monster. This was a guy who murdered his three children, who tried to beat his wife into abortion."

"At the end of this, I think what you will find, that an absolute monster who killed his own kids and the science is going to be there to back it up."

"And I think at the end of the day, this is what Texans will see and agree with, that this was a very, very bad man who killed his kids."

Rick Perry and many of the Texas powers-that-be fear Cameron Todd Willingham, now more than ever, though they killed him more than six years ago. They have been working mightly to eviscerate the Texas Forensic Science Commission for fear it might describe the arson science associated with the Willingham trial to be crapalicious.

Today, Navarro County DA R. Lowell Thompson ran crying (not literally) from the District Judge Charlie Baird's courtroom to tell on him. While choking back the tears (not literally), R. Lowell told the 3rd Court of Appeals that Judge Baird was going to (gasp!) allow testimony in a Court of Inquiry regarding the possible guilt or innocence of Cameron Todd Willingham. The 3rd said "Stop it."

From The Houston Chronicle:

In an emergency stay, the 3rd Court of Appeals ordered state District Judge Charlie Baird not to rule in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in 2004 for the murder of his three young children. Innocence Project lawyers, who are seeking to clear Willingham's name, have until Oct. 22 to respond.

The 3rd Court's ruling was prompted by a petition by Navarro County District Attorney R. Lowell Thompson, who earlier had failed in persuading Baird to recuse himself. Thompson contended Baird had not followed state law governing such hearings.

Earlier Thursday, lawyers and expert witnesses told Baird that bogus science and a career criminal's courtroom lies sent the 36-year-old auto mechanic to his execution.

As Willingham's mother and cousin stiffly sat on the courtroom's front bench, fire experts Gerald Hurst and John Lentini testified that not only was a fire inspector's testimony in Willingham's trial based on bad science but that his interpretations were "totally off the wall."

Thursday's testimony came in a court of inquiry one day before the Texas Forensic Science Commission was set to hold a meeting in Austin. Willingham's case is on today's commission agenda.

"Every shred of evidence points to his innocence," said former Gov. Mark White, a member of the Innocence Project's legal team.

White called the series of legal events leading to Willingham's execution "a failure of the system."

White excoriated people with responsibility for the manner in which a critical review of arson investigators' testimony was handled in the days leading to the execution.

Hurst testified that his report was submitted four days before Willingham was to be put to death, but a fax introduced as evidence showed that Gov. Rick Perry got the report little more than a hour before the lethal drugs were administered.

"There were no indications of arson," Hurst said in explaining how assistant state Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez misconstrued evidence.

Lentini, who with four other fire experts also reviewed the investigation, said that all 20 of the indicators Vasquez cited as evidence of arson were bogus.

A San Antonio lawyer, Gerald Goldstein, another member of the Innocence Project team, told Baird that "jailhouse snitch" Johnny Webb twice recanted his earlier trial testimony that Willingham had confessed to killing his children.

Tracing Webb's criminal career to 1987, Goldstein called the man "a cornucopia of crime."

Prosecutors bought Webb's testimony, Goldstein charged, by downgrading an aggravating robbery sentence and arranging an early parole.

Webb first submitted a handwritten motion recanting his testimony in March 2000, Goldstein said. But authorities never provided it to Willingham's appeals lawyer.

"I can't think of a remedy to overcome the harm that's been done," White said in concluding the Innocence Project presentation. "It's a signal to the court, to the leaders of the state, to the Legislature, that it's time for a change in the way we hand out these sentences."

Jailhouse snitch Johnny Webb makes an early appearance in The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham, scheduled for release as soon as I can get my fingers to do my bidding. For now, I'll provide a few actual questions and answers from his testimony. Keep in mind the comment  from just above that "Prosecutors bought Webb's testimony ... by downgrading an aggravating robbery sentence and arranging an early parole." Keep in mind as well that Johnny Webb had a bit of a drug problem.

“How old are you, Johnny?” >> Twenty-two.

“You have had a rather extensive criminal history, have you not?” >> Yes, sir, I have.

“You've been charged and convicted one time or another for stealing a car, is that right?” >> Yes.

“Of delivery of marijuana?” >> Yes, sir.

“Theft?” >> Yes, sir.

“Forgery?” >> Yes, sir.

“And of burglary, in addition to the robbery, is that right?” >> Yes, sir.

“Johnny, what is your problem as far as not being able to stay out of trouble?” >> Drugs.

“I take it you are off drugs now.” >> Yes, I am, except for the medication.

“Okay. You have any trouble with mental impairment or anything like that, Johnny?” >> Not always.

Then Johnny Webb is asked to identify the defendant.

“Is that the same Todd Willingham that is present here in this courtroom today?” >> Yes, it is.

“Is he here seated at the counsel table with his defense attorneys?” >> Do what?

Later he is asked if his testimony has been purchased.

“Johnny, have I ever promised you anything in return for your testimony in this case?” >> No, sir, you haven't.

“As a matter of fact, I told you there is nothing I can do for you.” >> You said there was nothing that no one can do for me.

Johnny Webb was the prosecution's lead witness in the trial of Cameron Todd Willingham. As a skeptical juror, would you have believed the prosecution when they had a jailhouse snitch tell you he would receive no payoff for his testimony? Would you begin to doubt the prosecution case immediately?

Friday Morning Update:
I've purloined two video news reports from yesterday's proceedings. If you prefer, you can view them directly from YouTube here and here.

Skinner, Scalia, and SCOTUS

Hank Skinner had his say before the Supreme Court of the United States today. At least his attorney Rob Owen did. The Washington Times has the only article I found online. Here's the takeaway.

The defense wants to test additional evidence that could determine whether Ms. Busby was sexually assaulted and, if so, by whom. They also want testing done on two knives that his lawyers say were likely used to kill the two sons.

State courts in Texas have rejected Skinner's request, ruling his case doesn't meet the requirements of the state's laws regarding post-conviction DNA testing.

Skinner's lawyers say that's a violation of his constitutional rights and want the federal courts to require testing of the evidence. The state counters that Skinner wants to create a system in which federal courts serve "as appellate tribunals second-guessing the decisions of state courts."

The justices Wednesday seemed concerned about that possibility as Justice Antonin Scalia noted, "You had the opportunity to raise this in the state court, and now you are retrying what the state court did decide."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was particularly sharp in her questioning of Skinner's lawyer, Robert C. Owen.

"Mr. Owen, I know I am pushing you," she said at one point, "but I really would like a clear statement of what the procedural due-process violation which you are claiming occurred here is?"

"Your Honor, our claim is that in its construction of the statute in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals [the court] construed the statute to completely foreclose any prisoner who could have sought DNA testing prior to trial but did not from seeking testing under the post-conviction statute," he said. "That speaks too broadly."

While the justices expressed some skepticism of Mr. Owen's argument and the role of federal courts in the case, they also appeared cautious not to dismiss Skinner's claims out of hand.

"We've never had a case like this and it's conceivable to me that we have to expand [on previous rulings]," Justice Scalia said.

Recall that it was Scalia who halted Skinner's execution 45 minutes before it was too late. Recall also that I have mocked him for his predicted wrongful conviction rate of 0.027%. Recall finally, his famous words.

It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case -- not one -- in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent’s name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby.

I'm sure those words are ringing in his ears. I'm sure also he's aware of the impending publication of The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham. I'm sure finally he's aware that I have already FACTUALLY EXONERATED! Hank Skinner.

I have no idea when they might make their ruling. In all seriousness, I hope they decide wisely.

Thursday Morning Update:
Here's a more informative article on yesterday's hearing. According to that report, SCOTUS could hand down its ruling any time between December and March.

Thursday Afternoon Update:
Here's a still better explanation from The Texas Tribune.

In briefs filed before oral arguments on Wednesday, Skinner’s lawyers argued that his lawsuit should proceed because the DNA testing he seeks would not necessarily result in the overturning of his sentence. If the high court allows Skinner’s case to proceed, a lower federal court would decide whether to allow the testing — and even if that were to happen, there’s no guarantee that the DNA test results would be exculpatory. If they were, Skinner would then have to go through another legal process to be exonerated. “It does not necessarily imply … the conviction is lawfully invalid,” Owen told the justices. The way the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted the state post-conviction DNA law, Owen says, would bar anyone who didn’t have evidence tested at trial from doing so subsequently, and that violates due process.

Coleman, Switzer's attorney, argued in his brief that Skinner’s request must be a habeas proceeding because it ultimately seeks to undo his death sentence. Under Texas post-conviction DNA testing law, he argued, Skinner cannot reject testing at his original trial — a legal strategy meant to protect the defendant at the time — and then later claim he was deprived of a right to analyze the evidence. (Skinner has claimed that his original trial lawyer declined the tests against his wishes.) Allowing a federal court to reverse state court denials of the DNA testing would make the federal courts the overseers of state DNA laws — a situation that Congress has been careful to avoid, Coleman argued, by allowing states to decide their own post-conviction DNA testing laws. Skinner should not be able to sue Switzer to get the DNA, he said, because the DA is simply carrying out the law passed by the Texas Legislature.

In the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether the high court ought to intervene in the Texas courts’ interpretation of state DNA testing laws. “It's up to them how they want to interpret it. We don't reinterpret state statutes because the state Supreme Court interpreted it strangely,” he told Skinner’s attorney. And the justices pressed attorneys on both sides to specify what criteria ought to be used to differentiate a habeas corpus case from a "1983" civil rights case if the eventual result of both is to alter the conviction. The question in the Skinner case presents something of a Catch-22, Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out. “He thinks [the DNA is] going to be exculpatory. He doesn’t know that until he gets it,” Breyer said. “Getting the DNA does not necessarily spell speedier release; it all depends on what that DNA shows.”

The attorneys general of nearly two-dozen states, including Texas, Oklahoma and Colorado, submitted a brief supporting Gray County DA Switzer in the Skinner case. They argue that if the court were to allow Skinner to seek a federal court’s approval for DNA testing, it would undermine post-conviction DNA laws in 48 states. “Sound principles of federalism and judicial restraint demand that this Court reject Skinner’s invitation,” the attorneys general wrote. A ruling in Skinner’s favor, they said, would also invite hundreds of inmates to file similar litigation, overtaxing scarce state funds. But Owen said that was unlikely to happen: In states that do allow civil rights lawsuits for those seeking DNA evidence, he argued, inmates have not flooded the courts with lawsuits. “It’s going to be a safety valve for highly unusual cases like our case,” he said.

Skinner’s daughter, Natalie Skinner, and his wife, Sandrine Ageorges-Skinner, were among the observers at the proceedings Wednesday. Outside the court, Natalie, with tears in her eyes, remembered the relief she felt in March when the court spared her father’s life at the last minute and agreed to take up his case. “I’m just happy for the opportunity,” she said. “But it’s not about how I feel. It’s about the legal issues of the case.”

Willingham, Skinner, Perry and my Fingertips

I missed the Sunday night football game. I'm not sure I missed anything really. It wasn't an exciting matchup and I still don't know who won.

Oh, yeah. And I haven't finished The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham. I had predicted I might finish by kickoff. I also conceded I might run a few days late. I'm now predicting I will run a few days late. It's not that I couldn't have had the words on paper, metaphorically speaking. My problem is that they weren't the right words, and they weren't in the right order.

The book is still growing within me, expressing itself through my fingertips in stuttering text. Sometimes, unfortunately, those fingertips replace sentences, and paragraphs, and even entire blocks of text. Yesterday, they moved the Interlude to the Postlude. Does that make any sense?

My fingertips replace those old words with something I have never read before, something no one has ever read before. Each time, I'm mightily impressed with the results, but my fingertips never seem to be. They keep going back and changing everything, and I can't get them to stop.

I have a chapter and a half to finish, and some notes to write, but my fingertips won't cooperate. And the world moves on without me.

This Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court will listen to Hank Skinner's plea that he be allowed access to DNA evidence that might exonerate him. Given that the people of Texas wish to strap him to a gurney and inject lethal chemicals into his arm, I think it is an entirely reasonable request. Others, however, believe he is simply trying "to game the system."

This Thursday, a Court of Inquiry will continue trying to look into the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Navarro County will ask for a new judge. I believe they are simply tyring "to game the system."

Next Tuesday, Frontline will air its piece on the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. A lot of people will be watching, and some of them would like to learn more about the case.

On the second day of next month, the people of Texas will elect their next governor. I hope that it will not once again be Rick Perry. With respect to that particular election, I am a single-issue guy: Rick Perry is willing to put potentially innocent people to death. For that, I believe he must be removed from office.

Perry ignored the affidavit of this country's foremost fire investigator. The affidavit made crystal clear that the evidence used to convict Cameron Todd Willingham was simply wrong. I suspect that neither Perry nor his hand-picked Board of Pardons and Paroles even bothered to read the affidavit. They gave no hint that they had done so.

With respect to the Willingham case, Rick Perry made a horrible, avoidable mistake that should cost him his political career. It cost Willingham his life. Now Rick Perry is compounding that mistake. He refuses to allow anyone to examine the DNA evidence that might prove Skinner either guilty or innocent.

Amidst all this, I cannot get my fingertips to do my bidding.

News Flash #5 Regarding Cameron Todd Willingham

In the movie Bananas, Woody Allen (aka Fielding Mellish) manages to get  himself involved in overthrowing the Batista-like government of San Marcos. The new regime immediately begins executing the leaders of the previous regime, in assembly line fashion. The charges are read, the prisoner is asked how he pleads, is tied to a post, and shot. (It's kind of like Rick Perry's vision of heaven.) We see the entire case of one prisoner unfold before us.

Q. "You are accused of killing over a thousand people in your term of office... of torturing hundreds of women and children. How do you plead?"
 

A. Guilty... with an explanation.

Those of you who have been monitoring this site hourly to see if I have finally gotten around to publishing anything other than a fluff piece may have noticed that I haven't been posting. To that charge, I plead Guilty, with an explanation.

In News Flash #2 Regarding Cameron Todd Willingham, I announced that I had found the transcripts of the case, and I was going to make Willingham the subject of my third book in the series, and I would have the book complete some time next year.

In this News Flash Regarding Cameron Todd Willingham, I wish to annouce I now hope to complete the book somewhat sooner. I now hope to have the book finished before the next Sunday Night Football game. I may not make it, but I'll be finished much closer to Faith Hill's Sunday Night Football theme song than Guy Lombardo's Auld Lang Syne.

It seemed to me that things were heating up with respect to the Willingham case, and getting the book out next year might make it a day late and a dollar short. So I secretly began writing at a furious pace, to see if I could complete it in a week. I started off pretty fast, but slowed considerably as the lack of sleep caught up with me. I've now settled into a somewhat more moderate, more sustainable, but still aggressive routine, and I'm now satisfied I can turn out a good product by kickoff. Even if I miss by a day or two, I will have written an entire book in around two weeks time.

Then I'll turn it over to my editor / publisher (aka The Skeptical Spouse) and hold my breath. If she tells me it's not good enough, then I'll take it back and do what I need to do to fix it. Anyone can turn out a crappy book in two weeks. (Actually, most people couldn't write even a crappy book in two weeks, but you get my point.)

Assuming the book passes muster, and that's far from a given, then my publisher has agreed to expedite things on her end. The book will go to our printer the next day (cover design is already complete), and should appear on Amazon a few weeks after that. The Kindle edition will appear even more quickly, perhaps some day next week.

I've had to put almost everything else on hold to make this happen, so I'm falling behind on everything else, including posting here. I'm sure you'll understand, now that I've take the time to explain.

And in all seriousness, I hope The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham does something to help with the terrible problem of wrongful conviction in our country.

News Flash #4 Regarding Cameron Todd Willingham

Judge Charlie Baird started the Cameron Todd Willingham hearing today as scheduled, but soon recessed until the 14th. On that day, he will hear arguments regarding Navarro County's motion that he recuse himself. It should be interesting. I'm guessing Rick Perry would be ecstatic to have the hearing delayed until after the election. I suspect those who believe Willingham to have been wrongfully executed will be disappointed at any delay.  We'll just have to wait.

So here's the link, and here's the new modified calendar.  I've added an item based on feedback from the teeming masses who read this blog. I've also added the date of the gubernatorial election.

13 Oct -- US Supreme Court to hear case of Hank Skinner

14 Oct -- Court of Inquiry opens in case of Cameron Todd Willingham
19 Oct -- Frontline airs show re case of Cameron Todd Willingham
30 Oct -- 11th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty (State Capitol, 2PM)
02 Nov -- Perry v. White (Perry +5 as of this post)
08 Nov -- Judge Fine to hear motions on constitutionality of the death penalty