Today's Corpus Christi Caller-Times carries the editorial, "New limit on state forensics panel is a justice setback."
Even the most ardent supporters of the death penalty want to be sure that the condemned deserve their sentence. If a conviction can be proved wrongful, it should be — not just to prevent a pending execution, but to clear the names of the mistakenly executed and to learn how not to repeat such grievous errors.
How far such efforts should go is a matter of continuing debate. But they should go farther than the limit placed on them Friday by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. The attorney general decided that the Texas Forensic Science Commission can't examine forensic testing that predates the commission's 2005 inception.
And:
Abbott's opinion doesn't prevent the commission from looking into professional negligence or misconduct that occurred before the commission's inception. It just can't review evidence that was tested or introduced into evidence before then. So, assuming — as we do — that forensic science has progressed, Abbott's decision prevents the application of today's knowledge to correct mistakes by investigators who acted competently and in good faith but were limited by the technology of the day.
We'll go out on a limb and suspect that Texas imprisoned people wrongly convicted before 2005, including some on Death Row. Forgoing the potential to correct those mistakes because the commission didn't exist yet isn't justice.
The jury is out on whether it's politics, but there's a whiff of that in the Willingham case.
"Forensic panel should be aggressive, despite AG opinion," is today's Dallas Morning News editorial.
A new and confusing attorney general’s opinion might appear to hem in the authority of the Texas Forensic Science Commission over cases dating back several years, no matter how rotten they smell.
But it doesn’t have to turn out that way — not if the commission charts an aggressive tack when it sees that justice has been ill-served. And it should be clear that the commission smells an odor in the Cameron Todd Willingham arson-murder investigation, which ended in Willingham’s execution.
Bewildering guidelines in Attorney General Greg Abbott’s opinion leave the door ajar if the commission wants to take the final steps and decide whether arson investigators were negligent in the Willingham probe. We urge members to settle that question, despite the numerous efforts of Gov. Rick Perry and others to head off a closer examination of this troubling case.
And:
Should Willingham’s arson investigators have said something about the evolution of standards? Absolutely. Did they have a duty to correct the record?
On that, the Forensic Science Commission has been clear. Its Willingham report from April said that forensic investigators must speak up and correct the record when re-examination is warranted.
That didn’t happen prior to Willingham’s execution, and it should have. Silence was tantamount to negligence. There are potentially hundreds of inmates in Texas prisons whose convictions are based on outmoded science, and the state fire marshal’s office can and should be called out on it.
"Texas AG's forensic ruling further clouds Todd Willingham case," is the title of a Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorial.
The point of asking the Texas attorney general for an interpretation of law is to find clarity and guidance.
But an AG's ruling on the authority of the Texas Forensic Science Commission seems to have added another convolution to those already encircling the case of Cameron Todd Willingham.
Attorney General Greg Abbott said the commission can continue looking into whether professional misconduct occurred in the arson investigation that led to Willingham's capital conviction -- but the panel can't evaluate specific evidence used to prosecute him.
That's more than a little confusing. And it adds more question marks to the commission's next steps in its Willingham inquiry.
And:
In July, Perry named Tarrant County Medical Examiner Nizam Peerwani chairman of the commission. Its next meeting is Sept. 9 in Austin, and a Saturday Star-Telegram news story quoted Peerwani as saying Abbott's ruling would be discussed.
It would be unfortunate if, after all the time and effort the commission put into examining the Willingham case, a final conclusion is precluded. But the work done so far has produced valuable recommendations for essential improvements in arson standards and training. Making those changes will strengthen the accuracy and fairness of criminal prosecutions -- and add certainty to the punishments the state administers.
AG Opinon GA 866 is available in Adobe .pdf format. Earlier coverage of the Attorney General's Opinion regarding the FSC begins at the link.
Earlier coverage of the Todd Willingham case 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