Rick Casey's latest Houston Chronicle column is, "Senate may save science from politics."
It may surprise some folks in the more liberal parts of the nation, but while Texas leads the nation in death penalty executions, it also took an important step in 2005 to lead the nation in improving the science that is used to convict suspects.
The Texas Forensic Science Commission was created to police the state's forensic science practices in the wake of the widely publicized scandals at the HPD crime lab. The seven scientists on the nine-member panel have worked vigorously to keep politics out of the panel and use it to promote more professionalism in a field that hardly works like CSI makes it seem.
But politics have plagued the commission for 18 months — ever since Gov. Rick Perry appointed Williamson County DA John Bradley to head the commission in an obvious political act.
Now it is time for the Senate to confirm, by a two-thirds vote, that appointment. Houston Sen. Rodney Ellis believes he has the votes to remove Bradley. Texans should hope he's right.
And:
In July, he presented the commission with an unsigned memorandum finding that it didn't have jurisdiction over the Willingham case and claimed it was "drafted, reviewed and edited through the combined efforts of the two members of the FSC who are lawyers, counsel for the Attorney General's Office."
When that was exposed as untrue, Bradley, who couldn't quite admit that he wrote the memo, joined in an 8-0 vote rejecting its conclusions.
Bradley's attitude toward the use of science was demonstrated back in 2002 when, on an Internet bulletin board for Texas prosecutors, he responded to a prosecutor who wanted a suspect to waive any further DNA testing as a condition of a plea bargain.
"A better approach might be to get a written agreement that all the evidence can be destroyed after the conviction and sentencing. Then, there is nothing left to retest."
The reason it should be destroyed is that if the defendant later shows evidence he is innocent, he might get his earlier agreement set aside.
"Innocence, though, has proven to trump most anything," Bradley wrote, as if this is a problem.
I asked him what interest the state has in destroying evidence, especially when scores of Texas convicts have been found innocent based on DNA testing after serving years in prison.
He said we need finality and painted a picture of thousands of inmates filing endless appeals.
That's an arguable rationale for a district attorney, but it is an untenable philosophy for the chairman of the Forensic Science Commission.
Peggy Fikac writes, "Dust-up at hearing could cost Perry nominee." Her column appears in the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News. She the Austin Bureau Chief for the two Hearst-owned papers.
It's not looking good for John Bradley, the tough-talking prosecutor named by Republican Gov. Rick Perry to head the Forensic Science Commission — and not just because of Democratic opposition to his appointment.
"The Democrats are not going to vote for him, and there are two Republicans that are not," said Senate Nominations Committee Chairman Bob Deuell, R-Greenville. It takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to confirm the governor's appointees. There are 19 Senate Republicans and 11 Democrats.
"He probably thought he could talk a couple of Democrats into voting for him. I don't think he can talk four" into it, Deuell said.
Bradley, who's Williamson County district attorney, has drawn controversy since Perry appointed him commission head in 2009, most notably over his handling of the high-profile Cameron Todd Willingham case. Perry had denied Willingham's request for a stay before his 2004 execution in the fire deaths of his children. Critics have said the pace of work on the case has been too slow and were dismayed when Bradley called Willingham a "guilty monster."
Bradley defended his work last Monday at a hearing under questioning by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston. who's been critical of Bradley. Ellis isn't a Nominations Committee member, but senators are given the courtesy of asking questions. The two had a dustup in which Bradley bluntly questioned Ellis' impartiality, noting that Ellis is chairman of the Innocence Project.
Ellis in turn asked whether Bradley has a conflict as a prosecutor and called him "God's gift to us." Bradley called Ellis' sarcasm "evidence of your bias."
Senators generally aren't addressed harshly by people seeking confirmation (or anyone else who testifies). Ellis wasn't the only one who noticed. "I think the committee hearing took some votes from him," Deuell said.
If there aren't enough votes to confirm Bradley, Senate leaders expect to let his nomination linger without a vote. His appointment then would be valid through the end of the session.
Earlier coverage of the Bradley nomination begins at the link.
All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham index.
The Beyler report prepared for the Forensic Science Commission is here in Adobe .pdf format.
David Grann's September 2009 New Yorker article is noted here. Steve Mills and Maurice Possley first reported on the case in a 2004 Chicago Tribune series on junk science. The December 9, 2004 report was titled,"Man executed on disproved forensics."
The Innocence Project has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.
Comments