A Partial Victory

You may remember the case in which the Texas sentenced a man to death after a trial in which the judge and prosecutor were literally in bed together, and the state's abominable appellate courts created a series of transparent procedural Catch-22s to insulate the state from its gross violation of due process. Earlier in the week, the Texas courts threw out his death sentence without addressing the central issue:

A Texas court threw out the death sentence on Wednesday of a man whose double murder conviction gained international attention because of revelations that the judge and prosecutor had had an extramarital affair.

But the decision from the State Court of Criminal Appeals did not mention the affair, focusing instead on whether jurors had been blocked from getting information that might have helped them deliver a less severe sentence.

[...]

The new opinion, on a separate writ, focused on whether the jurors should have been able to fully consider issues like Mr. Hood’s learning disabilities, and the fact that he had been gravely injured at 3 years old when a truck backed over him, crushing his legs.

Such questions about jury instructions are an area of legal dispute that has bounced from state courts to the United States Supreme Court and back over the past 20 years. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has called the result “a dog’s breakfast of divided, conflicting, and ever-changing analyses.”

With the equivalent of a textual sigh, Judge Cathy Cochran wrote in the Texas court’s majority opinion that, “We wade once more into the murky waters” of jury instruction; and the majority ruled that Mr. Hood deserved a new hearing on the question of punishment.

Since it only affects sentencing, this decision shouldn't make the pending appeal to the Supreme Court moot. Whether the Supremes will grant cert or not, I have no idea.

Read more...

"This verdict is written on a cocktail napkin. And it still says guilty. And guilty is spelled wrong."

"With Me As Your Law...Talkin' Guy, Your Railroad to the Death Chamber is Ready!"

It's bad enough that various state officials conspired to murder Cameron Todd Willingham based on worthless junk science and the implausible testimony of a mentally ill jailhouse snitch. But apparently one reason that they were able to get away with it is that Willingham's attorney seems inept and slaveringly authoritarian even by the standards of Texas death penalty attorneys:

Now, via Ta-Nehisi Coates, I see that Willingham's defense attorney, David Martin, has been interviewed by CNN's Anderson Cooper, and his belligerent insistence on Willingham's guilt is, if anything, more shocking than Jackson's blase acceptance of having sent a man to death on the basis of faulty evidence.

Martin, who is in no way a trained arson investigator--let alone a fire scientist--explains that he bought some carpet, poured lighter fluid on it, and set it aflame and it looked "just exactly like the carpet in Todd Willingham's house." On this basis, he concluded, "There was no question whatsoever he was guilty," adding, "That's why they found him guilty, I think, in under 30 minutes." (The quality of his defense obviously couldn't have played a role.)

As Orr says, "see how many times you have to remind yourself that this man was Willingham's defense attorney:"



Can something be unsurprising and still shocking?

Read more...

"Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence. "

"Mr. Perry, don't you worry. I watched Matlock in a bar last night. The sound wasn't on, but I think I got the gist of it."

In comments, Matt points us to this remarkable op-ed from one of Cameron Todd Willingham's murderers, former prosecutor John H. Jackson. Essentially, Willingham was convicted based on two things: junk-scientific non-evidence that the fire was arson, and the ludicrously implausible testimony of a mentally ill jailhouse snitch. Amazingly, Jackson concedes that the central forensic junk science was "undeniably flawed" and doesn't mention the snitch's testimony at all, but continues to assert that Willingham was guilty. Nina Morrison systematically dismantles the remaining "evidence" Jackson cites. To summarize:

• The vast majority of the potentially damning stuff (assertions that Willingham was a sociopath, assumptions that a fridge blocking the rear entrance was placed there intentionally, ambiguous statements at his daughter's funeral) inextricably bootstraps from the assumption that the fire was arson. A claim for which there is now, as Jackson admits, no evidence.
• Remaining is stuff that obviously isn't evidence of anything (refusing to take an inadmissible polygraph), assertions that he tried to cause a miscarriage that were denied by his wife, evidence that makes clear we wasn't a saint but don't constitute anything remotely resembling evidence that he would burn his three daughters alive, and evidence that if anything points to his innocence rather than his guilt (his vehement -- indeed, heavens to betsy, "vulgar" -- rejection of a plea agreement.)
• And, finally, the punchline: " I am convinced that in the absence of any arson testimony, the outcome of the trial would have been unchanged, a fact that did not escape the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals." Well, if the country's favorite conveyor belt to the death chamber refused to overturn his conviction, I'm convinced!
  

It would be a disgrace if Willingham was even prosecuted based on this crap. That he was executed...

Read more...