Texas science panel adopts arson recommendations

Todd Willingham
and daughter

A state panel on Friday recommended more education and training for fire investigators following its review of a case involving a Texas inmate executed after a fire labeled arson killed his three daughters.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission also recommended establishing procedures for revisiting old cases.

Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004. Prosecutors accused the 36-year-old unemployed mechanic of setting the fire at his home in Corsicana, about 60 miles south of Dallas. A jury convicted him of capital murder and sent him to death row. His conviction was upheld nine times on appeal.

Willingham didn't testify at his trial but always insisted _ even in an obscenity-filled tirade the moment before his death _ that he was innocent. He suggested the fire could have been started accidentally by his 2-year-old daughter, Amber, who died along with her 1-year-old twin sisters, Karmon and Kameron.

Death penalty opponents have questioned arson investigators' testimony that led to Willingham's conviction and suggest he may be the first person wrongly executed in the U.S. since capital punishment resumed more than three decades ago. Several experts have since concluded the fire at his home was of undetermined cause or accidental but not arson, as two fire marshals at the scene ruled in 1991.

The commission on Friday completed an often tedious review of its nearly 50-page draft report based on Willingham's case and settled on the 16 recommendations for fire investigators, prosecutors and defense attorneys and lawmakers.

"We're suggesting somebody else is going to have to carry these things out," said Commission Chairman John Bradley.

The panel said Thursday that it wouldn't decide whether arson investigators were negligent or guilty of professional misconduct in Willingham's case until the Texas attorney general's office decides whether the panel has that authority.

The state commission can't exonerate Willingham or reopen his case but determines whether forensic science in such cases was sound. The eight-member panel won't make a ruling on negligence or professional misconduct by the fire's initial investigators until it gets word from the attorney general, a decision not likely until July. John Bradley, a suburban Austin district attorney and the commission chairman appointed by Gov. Rick Perry in 2009, had requested the legal opinion. After courts rejected appeals in Willingham's case, Perry refused to stop Willingham's execution.

"In general, I'm satisfied," said Stephen Saloom, policy director for the Innocence Project, which first raised questions about the case. "They were constrained by the AG's opinion and have had to overcome the chairman's relentless efforts to keep a lot of issues down. In the areas they're permitted to address, they've made some significant progress and deserve credit for that."

He called it a great improvement over the draft report released Thursday.

"They've gotten much more specific," he said. "It responds to the allegations as much as possible. This gives a chance for all those past cases."

The panel's recommendations also include establishing a code of ethics for investigators and making procedure for involving the state fire marshal's office in fatal home fires. The commission acknowledged the Texas Legislature controls the money needed to implement a number of its recommendations.

Another wants the fire marshal's office to adhere to standards established by the National Fire Protection Association and become a model for local fire investigators in Texas. They also urged investigators to keep original files of their cases and forward copies of documentation to other interested parties like prosecutors and defense attorneys. In Willingham's case, the Forensic Science Commission can't see arson investigators' files because they've been lost.

The commission spent lengthy time Friday debating a review procedure they said fire investigators should establish for resolved cases, a re-examination process common in medical settings.

Commissioner Sarah Kerrigan called it central to the overall report, saying results and interpretations like Willingham's from 1991 may not be valid years later. They needed to be looked at and "stakeholders" impacted by any new interpretations be informed, she said.

"If the answer is 'no,' then we're really in trouble," she said.

"Conceptually, I don't disagree," Bradley said. "But in practice if we say something about this we have to be very careful. You've got adversaries in these cases and adversaries make wildly different claims that are decided by a jury."

After prolonged wrangling but in a direct reference to the Willingham case, they agreed to a recommendation that urges the state fire marshal's office develop standards similar to accredited disciplines of forensic science that "promote the re-examination of cases when science has evolved to create a material difference in the original analysis or result." Under its recommendation, the state fire marshal's office had a "duty to correct, duty to inform, duty to be transparent" and implement corrective actions.

The panel noted the evolution of fire standards never was disclosed by the fire marshal's office or Corsicana Fire Department as Willingham's case moved through the legal system.

Bradley came to the panel days before it was to hear from Craig Beyler, a Baltimore, Md., fire expert critical of the original investigation. Beyler's appearance was stalled until early this year. Bradley has denied allegations of bias and has labeled criticism directed toward him as "politics and circus sideshow." At the same time, his confirmation as board chairman is stalled before the Texas Senate and likely doomed after a contentious appearance before a senate committee. He can remain on the board through the end of the legislative session next month.

In its report, the commission determined investigators at the scene reasonably concluded Willingham's theory about his oldest daughter setting the fire was only a remote possibility because the children were so young and because no lighters were found near their bodies. The report also pointed out no uniform standard of practice existed for state or local fire investigators in the early 1990s.

Source: AP, April 22, 2011

_________________________

Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Forensic panel urges new look at old arson cases

Willingham's house
after the blaze

Adopting a stronger call to action Friday, a state agency concluded its review of the Cameron Todd Willingham case by urging Texas fire officials to re-examine investigations that may have relied on arson evidence now known to be unreliable.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission also added language to its final report clarifying the role that now-discredited "arson indicators" played in Willingham's conviction on murder charges.

The commission's inquiry, focused on the arson science behind the Willingham case, was never intended to weigh the guilt or innocence of the man Texas executed in 2004.

But the report adopted Friday marked the first time a state agency has acknowledged that unreliable evidence played a role in Willingham being convicted of setting fire to his Corsicana home in 1991 and killing his three young children.

"It's a good report," said Stephen Saloom, policy director of the Innocence Project, a New York legal advocacy center that filed the Willingham complaint with the commission in 2008.

"It makes clear that the old forms of arson evidence are not reliable and need to be banished from fire investigation practices in Texas," Saloom said. "And this gives a chance for justice for all those past cases where people may have been wrongfully convicted of arson."

The report, adopted 8-0 with one member absent, will be posted on the commission's website Monday.

The final version urged the Legislature and cities to set aside enough money to ensure that fire investigators are fully trained in the ever-evolving scientific understanding of fire behavior.

The panel offered 15 other recommendations for improving fire investigations, including formal adoption of investigative standards outlined in a National Fire Protection Association document, NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigation, and establishing peer review panels to examine pending arson cases.

But much of Friday's efforts were focused on whether the state fire marshal's office — whose investigator was the prosecution's star witness against Willingham — has a duty to re-examine other past investigations that may have been influenced by now-discredited investigative techniques.

"If the science changes, if the interpretation of the case changes over time, is there an obligation to inform the stakeholders and the criminal justice system? If the answer is no, then we're really in trouble," said commissioner Sarah Kerrigan, a forensic toxicologist and associate professor at Sam Houston State University.

Accredited forensic labs, when presented with evidence that a result was invalid or mistaken, are required to correct the error, inform everybody involved and fix the underlying problem, added commissioner Nizam Peerwani, chief medical examiner of Tarrant County.

Agencies that engage in interpretive scientific analysis, including fire investigators, should follow a similar guideline, Peerwani said.

Commissioners agreed, adding language to the final report urging the state fire marshal's office to develop standards to review past cases and correct any errors discovered.

Commissioners also noted that neither the fire marshal nor the Corsicana Fire Department notified judges or prosecutors that standards of arson investigation had improved in the years between Willingham's 1991 conviction and his 2004 execution.

In a letter to the commission last year, State Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado insisted that his agency stood by its investigator's arson finding in the Willingham case. On Thursday, commissioners responded by calling that an "untenable position in light of advances in fire science."

Maldonado issued a statement Friday noting that he had not yet seen the final report but that "the State Fire Marshal's Office is always open to improving the quality of its fire investigations. We will look to the final report for guidance and direction in achieving that goal."

The commission's report included a sample list of post-fire conditions once thought to be arson indicators, or evidence that fires had been intentionally set using an accelerant or combustible liquid. Scientists, largely by setting test fires over the past two decades, have concluded that the same conditions are present in many natural and accidental fires.

Indicators singled out by the commission included:

• V patterns: Former Deputy Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez testified that a V-pattern in Willingham's hallway indicated that he had started one of three fires there. "Scientists now know that the 'V-pattern' simply points to where something was burning at some stage of the fire, not necessarily the origin," the report says.

• Pour patterns: Vasquez testified that burn marks on the floor of Willingham's house could only have been caused by a poured liquid accelerant. But such patterns often have other causes, including synthetic carpeting, radiant heat, smoldering debris and flashover, the near-simultaneous ignition of every burnable item in a room.

• Spalling: Brown discoloration on Willingham's porch proved that a liquid accelerant had been squirted there, Vasquez testified. But the report said that "while spalling may be caused by burning accelerant, it is more often caused by sustained heat from other sources."

The commission may have another opportunity to revisit the Willingham case to examine whether investigators engaged in professional negligence in their investigation and testimony about the fatal fire. The attorney general's office has been asked to determine whether state law disallows such an inquiry. That opinion is due by July 30.

Source: statesman.com, April 15, 2011

_________________________

Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Texas commission’s report on Cameron Todd Willingham arson case avoids central questions

A state panel’s draft report on the 1991 arson investigation that led to Cameron Todd Willingham’s execution, released Thursday, avoids central questions raised by fire experts and advocates.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission began a 2-day meeting with discussion of the report, which was limited because of a pending request filed with the attorney general’s office that questions whether the commission has authority to investigate the case.

For now, the report addresses only standards of fire investigations based on expert testimony and documents collected over the last 2 years.

Opponents of the death penalty have touted the case of Willingham — executed in 2004 for the deaths of his three daughters in the fire — as a likely case in which an innocent person was executed because now-discredited science was used to declare the blaze to be arson. Others question that, saying Willingham’s guilt was proved by other factors.

The report could be the final, and inconclusive, chapter in the saga, if the attorney general agrees with the Corsicana Fire Department and the state fire marshal’s office that the commission does not have the power to determine negligence or misconduct in the case.

“If they fail to respond to the actual allegation filed, which this report does, then it will have failed to provide the public confidence in forensics that the Legislature intended,” said Steven Saloom of the New York-based Innocence Project, which filed the original complaint.

Some commission members said that parts of the report “dance around the issue” by not specifically tying fire investigation standards to the Willingham case.

“It looks at the history and progress of fire science,” said the commission’s general counsel Lynn Robitaille, who drafted the language of the report based on input from the nine commissioners.

It outlines recommendations for arson science, based on the review of the Willingham case.

“The commission has to be cautious not inferring or concluding negligence or misconduct until we have jurisdiction on this issue,” said Chairman John Bradley.

Commissioner Sarah Kerrigan questioned why members of the panel, none of whom are arson investigators, are making suggestions to the state fire marshal’s office about the standards of practice.

The hearing is likely to be the last led by Bradley, the Williamson County district attorney, because his nomination lacks sufficient support in the Senate.

Gov. Rick Perry shook up the commission in 2009, firing its chairman, just before it was to hear from a fire expert who criticized the fire science used to convict Willingham.

Source: Dallas Morning News, April 14, 2011

_________________________

Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Eleven sentenced to death for India Godhra train blaze

Eleven men have been sentenced to death for setting fire to a passenger train in the Indian town of Godhra in 2002, killing dozens of Hindu pilgrims.

Another 20 men were sentenced to life in prison. Last week, the court in Gujarat acquitted 63 of the accused.

The Sabarmati Express was attacked by a Muslim mob killing 59 people, mainly Hindu pilgrims.

The attack led to some of the worst riots seen in India, in which more than 1,000 people - mainly Muslims - died.

Gujarat's authorities were criticised for not doing enough to stop the riots.

All of those accused were Muslim. The convicted men have 90 days to appeal.

The attackers were said to have forced the train, carrying Hindu pilgrims returning from the northern town of Ayodhya, to stop, and then set fire to one of the carriages.

'Conspiracy'

Whether or not there was a conspiracy to set the train ablaze or whether it was a spontaneous fire has long been the subject of dispute.

An inquiry commission set up by the state government said in 2008 that the burning of the train was a "conspiracy".

That commission also exonerated Gujarat's Chief Minister Narendra Modi over the deadly religious riots that followed the blaze.

He was accused of failing to halt the violence and some opponents said he indirectly encouraged some of the Hindu rioters. But the commission dismissed these allegations.

However, Mr Modi was criticised in 2010 for his "partisan" stance by a separate Supreme Court panel which investigated the riots.

It said he showed "discriminatory attitude by not visiting riot-affected areas in Ahmedabad where a large number of Muslims were killed," according to Tehelka magazine and AFP news agency.

The inquiry commission's findings contradicted an earlier probe by retired Supreme Court judge Umesh Chandra Banerjee, who found that the coach fire was not deliberately started.

He concluded in 2005 that the fire began by accident.

He said there was evidence to suggest the blaze began inside the train and that it was not fire-bombed.

Source: BBC, March 1, 2011

_________________________

Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Texas: Long-Awaited Testimony Rejects Arson Conclusion

Willingham's house
after the blaze

Fire science expert Craig Beyler told the state's Forensic Science Commission on Jan. 7 that, at best, the cause of the fatal fire in Cameron Todd Willingham's home nearly two decades ago is "undetermined." Furthermore, as time goes by and science improves, the case for the fire to be considered arson "gets less and less, not more and more," he said. The testimony came some 14 months after Beyler was initially scheduled to discuss the 1991 fire that claimed the lives of Wil­ling­ham's three young children – and resulted in his conviction and execution for arson.

Beyler's conclusions were echoed by John DeHaan, a 40-year fire scientist who has authored and co-authored several seminal fire science textbooks and who previously worked for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. DeHaan, one of four witnesses asked to present before the commissioners last week, said that although there was not a "uniform standard of practice" for conducting fire investigations back in 1991, there are still elements of investigation that are universal – such as ruling out other accidental or natural causes for a fire before concluding that arson was to blame. That was not done by the Texas State Fire Marshal's Office, which handled the Willing­ham investigation. In fact, Beyler told the commission, which is made up predominately of scientists, it appears Deputy Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez (who has since died) never even looked through the charred debris in the bedroom where the Willingham children died. Instead, that debris was simply "shoveled" out the bedroom window. How could Vasquez determine that arson caused the fire if he never even sifted through all the evidence?

According to Ed Salazar, an assistant fire marshal who spoke to the commission Friday afternoon (after sitting somewhat steely-faced through the morning portion of the meeting with Beyler and DeHaan), Vasquez did rule out other possible causes of the fire – it's just that he didn't record it in his reports. Salazar said that when he began as a lawyer with the office in 1994, he'd noticed the reports were often sparse. But, he suggested, that doesn't mean they're incomplete. There is "no way I can sit here and defend the lack of specificity in these reports," Salazar said. Nonetheless, the investigator in 1991 "followed ... protocol; they followed the practices that were being used at the time."

Indeed, the Fire Marshal's Office told the commission in August that it would stand by its initial determination in the Willingham case, a position that DeHaan said was "dismaying." DeHaan and Beyler are among nearly a dozen fire science experts who have reviewed the state's work in the Willingham case and concluded it relied too much on outdated science, even by 1991 standards.

The Innocence Project asked the Forensic Science Commission to review not only Willingham's case but also that of Ernest Willis. Like Willingham, Willis was convicted of arson and sentenced to die. He was later exonerated, however, based on expert opinion that the investigation was flawed and the arson determination erroneous. Willis was released from prison just months after Willingham was executed. Beyler told commissioners that the state's work in both cases was faulty.

Beyler's meeting with the commission was initially scheduled for October 2009. Just days before the meeting, however, Gov. Rick Perry replaced several commission members – including Sam Bassett, an Austin defense attorney whom the panel had appointed as chair – and installed Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley as the new head of the group. Bradley indefinitely postponed the Beyler meeting and advocated scrapping it altogether, a move that was blocked by the members of the panel who are actually scientists.

That didn't stop Bradley last week from behaving combatively toward Beyler, DeHaan, and even a fellow commissioner, Tarrant County chief medical examiner Nizam Peerwani, as Bradley lobbed softballs at Salazar. In both the tone and the substance of his questions, Bradley seemed intent on agreeing with Salazar that the state's success or failure in investigating the Willingham fire is little more than a matter of personal judgment. Whether his fellow commissioners will agree – and what will happen next in the review of the Willingham case – remains to be seen.

Source: The Austin Chronicle, January 14, 2011

Texas panel re-examines arson execution case

Willingham's house
after the blaze

The execution of a Texas man for the deaths of his 3 small children in a house fire came under renewed scrutiny Friday as a state panel heard from arson experts who reviewed the evidence that sent Cameron Todd Willingham to the death chamber 7 years ago. The Texas Forensic Science Commission invited the fire experts to testify amid the Innocence Project's insistence that Willingham was convicted with faulty evidence and was innocent when he was put to death in 2004. The New York-based organization specializes in wrongful conviction cases.

Prosecutors in Corsicana, about 60 miles south of Dallas, have insisted Willingham's conviction and execution was proper, and the State Fire Marshal's Office has stood behind the arson finding.

Texas Forensic Science Commission chairman John Bradley said the board didn't plan to make a decision Friday and the session was an opportunity for members to ask questions. The commission invited 4 scientists to testify: Craig Beyler of Baltimore, John DeHaan of California, Thomas Wood from Houston and Ed Salazar of the state Fire Marshal's Office.

Beyler is among several experts who have challenged the conclusion that arson caused the 1991 fire that killed Willingham's 3 daughters. The chairman of the International Association of Fire Safety Science and one of the foremost experts in the field, Beyler wrote in a 2009 report that investigators didn't follow standards in place in 1991 and didn't have enough evidence to make an arson finding.

The opinions of a state fire official in the case were "nothing more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation," Beyler wrote.

He was scheduled to testify before the commission in 2009, but Bradley canceled that meeting in an effort to close the case and have the panel conclude investigators didn't commit professional misconduct in the case. Other members of the commission rebuffed Bradley's efforts, leading to Friday's hearing.

Beyler insisted Friday that the cause of the fire should have been listed as undetermined.

"I haven't changed my opinion in the year and a half since I wrote the report," he said.

Bradley said he wasn't quibbling with Beyler's opinion but said he believed the investigators "did the best they could given standards at the time."

"I think we'll differ on that," Beyler responded.

Willingham always maintained his innocence, including in his final statement from the death chamber gurney -- an obscenity-filled diatribe aimed at his ex-wife. She has said he confessed his guilt to her when she met with him days before his execution, but Innocence Project lawyers say her story has changed over the years.

Death penalty opponents have aimed to have the Willingham case become the first one in which a prisoner was formally declared wrongfully put to death.

The forensic commission's involvement became politically charged after Republican Gov. Rick Perry removed three members in 2009, days before they were to review reports casting doubt on Willingham's guilt. Bradley has been an ally for Perry in trying to close the inquiry.

The Innocence Project has objected that two arson investigators who testified on its behalf at an October court of inquiry about the Willingham case, Gerald Hurst and John Lentini, were "notably absent" among investigators the commission invited to Friday's meeting.

The October hearing was cut short by an appeals court after prosecutors successfully challenged the objectivity of the judge holding it because he'd received an award from an organization that opposes the death penalty.

Willingham's defense didn't include a fire expert to counter the state's witnesses because the one hired by his attorney also said arson started the fire.

Related article: "Trial by Fire", The New Yorker, Sept. 7, 2009

Source: Associated Press, January 8, 2011

Arson probe that led to execution assailed

AUSTIN — Fifteen months after he first was scheduled to testify before the Texas Forensic Science Commission, Baltimore fire expert Craig Beyler on Friday finally got a chance to tell panel members how botched arson investigations helped send a Corsicana man to his execution.

As has become typical in the complex and politically charged case, however, the story did not end there.

Officials from the Texas Fire Marshal's Office, rallying in defense of a now-dead arson investigator, offered counter-testimony, saying that rulings made in 1991 are as valid today as they were then.

The Forensic Science Commission took no action Friday. The panel's next scheduled meeting is Jan. 21 in Austin.

Click here to read the full article

Source: Houston Chronicle, January 8, 2011

It's time for capital punishment to become Texas history

The death penalty in Texas is fraught with demonstrable error, and the people of the state seem more willing to deal with that fact than their leaders.

Events of the past year have convinced us that defendants have been executed on the basis of invalid evidence. They may or may not have been guilty, but the fact that we have convicted people based on faulty evidence leads inexorably to a horrible likelihood — that we have executed innocent people. The high number of death row prisoners eventually exonerated makes a strong case that other innocent but less fortunate prisoners have been wrongfully put to death.

We don't lose sleep over the execution of guilty murderers. But the possible or probable execution of the innocent should trouble every Texan.

The freeing of Anthony Graves after 18 years in prison, many on death row, for a false murder conviction is only the most recent example of how badly the system is broken. His ordeal underlines how long the victims of wrongful death sentences must suffer in the cases where the errors are discovered before execution.

Two men, Cameron Todd Willingham, convicted of murder by arson, and Claude Jones, convicted of murder during a robbery, were executed on the basis of evidence later shown to be questionable or false.

We are heartened by figures showing that Texas and Harris County juries are sending fewer defendants to death row. Once known as the death penalty capital of the United States, Harris County has relinquished that grim title in recent years. If Texas were a nation, it would have been among the top state executioners in the world in past decades, in the company of judicial pariahs like China and Iran.

Since executions resumed in 1976, 464 have been carried out in Huntsville. Texas still led the nation in 2010 with 17 executions, more than twice the number of runner-up Ohio. This past year juries in Texas sentenced only eight people to die, while Harris County has had only two capital punishment sentences handed down.

Legal experts attribute the drop in death judgments to the availability of a life-without-parole statute passed by the Texas Legislature in 2005, and to the escalating costs to counties of the appeals process involving capital sentences. The exoneration of 11 Texas death row residents has undoubtedly made the public - and potential jury pools - more aware of the possibility that a death sentence could be an irreversible mistake.

Still, even as Texas juries show increased restraint in utilizing capital punishment, Texas elected officials - including most jurists - seem equally determined not to examine its flaws. When District Judge Kevin Fine attempted to conduct a hearing on the constitutionality of the death penalty as practiced in Texas, Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos first ordered her prosecutors to stand mute in court and then successfully appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to halt the hearing. More than 60 people, including former Texas Gov. Mark White, have filed a brief with the high court in support of allowing the death penalty hearing to go forward.

When the state Forensic Science Commission attempted to investigate whether Willingham was executed for the murder of his three children based on faulty arson evidence, Gov. Rick Perry replaced the commission chairman and several board members. A protracted and inconclusive investigation followed. An attempt by an Austin judge to conduct a hearing on the Willingham case has also been stymied by an appeals judge, who ruled that the jurist should have recused himself.

The accumulating evidence indicates that the current application of the death penalty in Texas involves an unacceptably high risk of killing innocent people. Yet even as the evidence of false convictions and wrongful executions piles up, only the participants at the base of the Texas criminal justice system, jury members, seem to be waking up to the reality of this evil.

Some opponents have called for a moratorium on executions in Texas until new, unspecified safeguards are in place to protect the innocent. Yet it's difficult to imagine a fail-safe route to execution.

Besides, we already have the ultimate safeguard on the books: the sentence of life without parole. Spending the rest of one's days in prison is as terrifying a deterrent to most people as quick execution. By ending state-sanctioned killing, in the future when a jury makes a mistake, resurrection won't be required to remedy it.

Source: Editorial, Houston Chronicle, January 1, 2011

10 Infamous Cases of Wrongful Execution

There’s no doubt about it – the U.S. criminal justice system is not perfect. And those imperfections become apparent when someone is the innocent victim of the death penalty. Wrongful executions have been happening for hundreds of years, but until the advent of DNA evidence and improved forensics technology, these individuals have remained guilty as charged.


Today, DNA evidence has exonerated and released 15 death row inmates since 1992, but only eight inmates have been acknowledged of their possible innocence after execution by the Death Penalty Information Center.


Here are 10 infamous cases of wrongful execution that deserve a second look:

1. Claude Jones: Claude Jones was executed in 2000 for the murder of liquor store owner Allen Hilzendager, in San Jacinto County in 1989. On Nov. 14, 1989, Jones and another man were seen pulling into a liquor store in Point Blank, Texas. One stayed in the car while the other went inside and shot the owner. Witnesses who were standing across the road couldn’t see the killer, but Jones and two other men, Kerry Dixon and Timothy Jordan, were all linked to the murder. Although Jones said he never entered the store, Dixon and Jordan testified that Jones was in fact the shooter and they were both spared the death penalty. The deciding factor and only admissible evidence in Jones’ conviction came down to a strand of hair that was found at the scene of the crime. A forensic expert testified that the hair appeared to have come from Jones, and he was sentenced to death. Forensic technology was underdeveloped during the 1990 trial and it wasn’t able to match Jones’ DNA with the hair sample. Therefore, before his 2000 execution, Jones’ attorneys filed petitions for a stay of execution with a district court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and requested that the hair be submitted for DNA testing that was now possible, but all courts and former Texas Governor George W. Bush denied Jones and he was executed. In an attempt to prove that Texas executed an innocent man, the Innocence Project and the Texas Observer filed a lawsuit in 2007 to obtain the strand of hair and submitted it for DNA testing, which was determined to be the hair of the victim.

2. Jesse Tafero: Jesse Tafero was executed by electric chair in 1990 for murdering two Florida police officers, Phillip Black and Donald Irwin. The murders occurred on Feb. 20, 1976, when Black and Irwin approached a parked car at a rest stop and found Tafero, his partner Sonia "Sunny" Jacobs, her two children and Walter Rhodes asleep inside. They were ordered to get out of the car when the officers saw a gun lying on the floor inside the car and, according to Rhodes, Tafero proceeded to shoot both officers and took off in their police car. They disposed of the police car and stole a man’s car, but were arrested after being caught in a roadblock. The gun was found in Tafero’s waistband, although it was legally registered to Jacobs. Tafero had been convicted of robbery and had served seven years of a 25-year sentence before being convicted for murder. Tafero and Jacobs claimed that Rhodes was the lone shooter, but Rhodes testified against them in exchange for a lighter sentence. Rhodes later admitted that he was responsible for the killings, but Tafero was still sentenced to death.

3. Cameron Todd Willingham: Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004 for murdering his three young daughters by intentionally setting fire to the family home in Corsicana, Texas. The arson-murder case fueled much controversy about Willingham’s guilt, which was determined by the case’s primary evidence – the arson investigators’ findings. They determined that the fire was deliberately set with the help of a liquid accelerant due to specific burn patterns, laboratory tests and points of origin. Willingham maintained his innocence and appealed his conviction for years, but was executed at the Texas State Penitentiary in Huntsville on Feb. 16, 2004. In 2009, the Texas Forensic Science Commission panel reevaluated the case and determined that state and local arson investigators used "flawed science" when they labeled the fire as arson. Although advances in fire science and arson investigations have improved since 1991, the year of the fire, experts now believe the Corsicana Fire Department was negligent in their findings. The science commission is still investigating the arson ruling, and if the judge clears Willingham, it would be the first time an official has formally declared a wrongful execution in Texas.

4. Larry Griffin: Larry Griffin was executed in 1995 for a drive-by shooting that killed 19-year-old drug dealer Quintin Moss in St. Louis. Griffin immediately became a suspect because his older brother Dennis Griffin, another well-known drug dealer, was murdered just six months earlier. Moss was believed to have killed Dennis Griffin. Although there were a number of possible suspects in the murder of Moss, a witness account by a white man named Robert Fitzgerald, who claimed to have seen the shooting, knew the license plate number of the vehicle and could identify the gunman was all it took to have Griffin arrested. Fitzgerald was a convicted felon who had a long history of run-ins with the law, which raised concerns about the legitimacy of his story. During the 1993 hearing, Fitzgerald admitted to being unsure if Griffin was the man in the car after all. There were two key witnesses who wavered and a third person whose testimony could have helped Griffin, but was never contacted by either the defense or prosecution. Griffin continued to proclaim his innocence until his execution. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund investigated the case after Griffin’s execution and wanted to uncover more witness accounts that could support their claim that Missouri executed an innocent man.

5. Ruben Cantu: Ruben Cantu was executed in 1993 for the murder-robbery of a San Antonio man at the age of 17. Cantu had no previous convictions, but was pinpointed as a violent murderer who shot one victim nine times, as well as shot the only eyewitness nine times with a rifle, but he lived to testify. Juan Moreno offered his testimony to police and identified Cantu as the shooter, but later recanted, admitting that he said Cantu out of influence and fear of authorities. Although the case had a compelling witness testimony, there was no physical evidence that linked Cantu to the crime. In addition, his co-defendant David Garza, who allegedly committed the murder-robbery with Cantu, remained silent and signed a sworn affidavit allowing his accomplice to be falsely accused. Cantu maintained his innocence until his execution and claimed that he had been framed in this capital murder case.

6. David Spence: David Spence was executed in 1997 for murdering three teenagers in 1982 in Waco. Spence was convicted of raping, torturing and murdering two 17-year-old girls and murdering an 18-year-old boy. As the original allegations go, Spence was hired by convenience store owner Muneer Deeb to kill one girl and he ended up killing these three teens by mistake. Deeb was charged and sentenced to death, but later received a re-trial and was acquitted. Authoritative sources even had serious doubt about Spence’s guilt. Although there was no clear physical evidence to link Spence to the crime, prosecutors used bite marks that were found on one of the girl’s body and matched it to Spence’s teeth. Even jailhouse witnesses were bribed into snitching on Spence. Despite weak evidential support and jail mate testimonies, Spence was executed.

7. Carlos De Luna: Carlos De Luna was executed in 1989 for the 1983 stabbing of Wanda Lopez, a Texas convenience store clerk. There were two eyewitnesses who played a key role in the conviction of De Luna. Before the murder-robbery, George Aguirre was filling up at the gas station where the crime occurred, when he saw a man standing outside the store slide a knife with the blade exposed into his pocket and enter. The man asked Aguirre for a ride to a nightclub, but he refused and went inside the store to warn Lopez about the suspicious man. Aguirre left and Lopez called the police to describe the man. As she was on the phone with a dispatcher, the man came back into the store and robbed her. The second witness, Kevan Baker, pulled into the station and heard bangs on the station’s window and saw a man struggling with a woman. As Baker approached the gas station, the murderer threatened him and took off. When police searched the area, they found De Luna not far from the station. He was shirtless and shoeless in a puddle of water and screamed, "Don’t shoot! You got me!" Both Aguirre and Baker confirmed De Luna was the man at the station. Little to no physical evidence was collected at the crime scene, including blood samples and fingerprints that could have helped De Luna. De Luna maintained his innocence and repeated that Carlos Hernandez was the actual killer. Despite Hernandez’s trouble with the law and repeated confessions to the murder, De Luna was executed.

8. Joseph O’Dell: Joseph O’Dell was executed in 1997 for raping and murdering Helen Schartner. O’Dell was convicted on the basis of blood evidence and a jailhouse snitch. O’Dell represented himself and continued to proclaim his innocence in various unsuccessful appeals to the Virginia Supreme Court, Federal District Court and the Supreme Court. O’Dell requested that the state submit other pieces of evidence for DNA testing, but he was refused. Despite much effort and several appeals, the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld his conviction and reinstated his death sentence. After his execution, Lori Urs, an anti-death penalty advocate and former wife to O’Dell, sought to further investigate the case and exonerate O’Dell based on mistaken blood matches, court opinions and refusal of DNA testing. However, the last of the DNA evidence from O’Dell’s case was burned in March 2000 and the appeals were laid to rest.

9. Leo Jones: Leo Jones was executed in 1998 for murdering a police officer in Florida. Although Jones confessed 12 hours after the murder, he said that he was forced to say he did it during hours of intimidating police interrogation, where they threatened his life and made him play Russian roulette. One witness believed that the police department was out to get Jones because he had assaulted an officer once. The same two arresting officers were released from the department shortly after for using violence in other cases. Despite repeated appeals, other potential suspects and witness testimonies in support of Jones’ exoneration, the sentencing stood as is. Jones was also denied another method of execution and was killed by the electric chair.

10. Timothy Evans: Timothy Evans was sentenced to death by hanging for the murder of his daughter in 1949 at their home in Notting Hill, London. Evans maintained his innocence and repeatedly accused his neighbor, John Christie, of murdering his wife and daughter. The police investigation and physical evidence used to convict Evans was weak. After Evans’ trial and execution, Christie was found to be a serial killer who was responsible for murdering several women at his residence. There were massive campaigns to overturn Evans’ conviction and an official inquiry was conducted 16 years later. It was confirmed that Evans’ daughter had been killed by Christie, and Evans was granted a posthumous pardon. This case of injustice had a strong influence in the UK’s decision to abolish capital punishment.

Source: Criminal Justice Degrees Guide, December 13, 2010

Prosecution 'Stands Mute' At Texas Death Penalty Hearing

Judge Kevin Fine

HOUSTON — Prosecutors on Monday told a judge presiding over an unusual court hearing on the constitutionality of the death penalty in Texas that they won't participate in the legal proceeding and will "stand mute" during the hearing.

Despite the prosecution's actions, the judge ordered the hearing to go forward and lawyers for John Edward Green Jr., the Houston man who asked for the proceeding, began calling witnesses.

The attorneys say will try to show that the way death penalty cases are handled in Texas creates a risk that innocent people will be executed. Green faces a possible death sentence if convicted of fatally shooting a Houston woman during a June 2008 robbery.

The hearing was ordered by Kevin Fine, a state district judge in Harris County who in the spring granted a motion by Green's attorneys and declared the state's death penalty statute unconstitutional. Under heavy criticism, Fine clarified then rescinded his ruling and ordered the hearing, saying he needed to hear evidence on the issue.

Experts on eyewitness identification, confessions and forensic evidence are among those expected to testify at the hearing, which resumes on Tuesday and could last up to two weeks. Green's attorneys called four witnesses on Monday.

The first witness called was Richard Dieter, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based group that has been critical of capital punishment.

Dieter discussed the 138 exonerations of death row inmates that have occurred in the U.S. since 1978, including 12 in Texas. He said that for every nine executions that have occurred in the U.S., there has been one exoneration.

Dieter said his group's review of these exonerations has shown that faulty eyewitness testimony, unreliable informant testimony and false confessions are some of the factors that have contributed to innocent people being wrongfully convicted.

"The system, the number (of exonerations), the fortuity of finding mistakes would lead me to believe there is certainly a risk of executing the innocent and that risk still exists today," he said.

After Green's attorneys finished questioning Dieter, Fine asked prosecutor Alan Curry if he had any questions.

"We still respectfully refuse to participate in the proceeding your honor," Curry said.

Later during the hearing, Fine told Curry he expected prosecutors to participate.

"I have been instructed by my boss, the district attorney, to stand mute for the remainder of the proceedings," Curry said, adding he meant no disrespect to Fine or others involved in the hearing.

Before the hearing began, Curry reiterated objections prosecutors have had to the hearing, saying the issues being debated are settled case law and that some of the issues Green's attorneys plan to discuss at the hearing, such as crime clearance rates and alleged racial discrimination in how juries are chosen, have no relevance to Green's case. Fine asked Curry to submit his objections to the relevancy of some of the issues to be discussed but said the hearing would go forward.

Prosecutors unsuccessfully tried to get Fine removed from the case, saying he is biased against the death penalty.

Fine has said he believes capital punishment is constitutional and the hearing will focus only on the specific issues raised by Green's attorneys.

Also testifying on Monday was Sandra Guerra Thompson, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center and an expert on eyewitness identification. Guerra testified that she believes such identifications can be filled with problems, including witnesses being overconfident in recalling events and witnesses being influenced by a need to help authorities. She was a member of a panel created by the Texas Legislature that earlier this year made recommendations on improving eyewitness identification procedures and allowing more DNA testing to take place after convictions.

If Fine were to rule the state's death penalty statute is unconstitutional, prosecutors have said they would appeal the decision, which would have a good chance of being overturned. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court, has previously ruled against similar challenges to the law like the one Green is making.

The hearing is unusual for Texas, a Republican state that has strongly supported capital punishment. The hearing is being held in Harris County, which includes the state's largest city, Houston, and has sentenced more people to death than any other Texas county – 286 since executions resumed in 1982. One hundred fifteen of those have been executed.

While anti-death penalty groups have lauded Fine, those in favor of capital punishment have called him misguided.

Green's attorneys say they plan to bring up executions that have been recently questioned, including that of Cameron Todd Willingham.

Willingham was put to death in 2004 for burning down his Corsicana home in 1991 and killing his 2-year-old daughter and 1-year-old twins. Several fire experts have found serious fault in the arson findings that led to his conviction.

Source: The Huffington Post, December 6, 2010