Trial by Fire - a case of death penalty in Texas

[citizen k]

Did anyone see the AC360 tonight?  Willingham's defense attorney was arguing (and in extremely obnoxious and rude tone) that his defendant was guilty, and that's what he always thought.  With defense lawyers like that, who needs prosecutors?  WTF is going on in Texas?

I saw that. His basic argument was that he and a buddy poured lighter fluid on a patch of carpet and set it alight. The pattern looked like that on the carpet of Willingham's house. He also said the expert witnesses couldn't state what the cause of the fire was and were motivated by anti-death penalty sentiment.

[DontSayBanana]

I saw that. His basic argument was that he and a buddy poured lighter fluid on a patch of carpet and set it alight. The pattern looked like that on the carpet of Willingham's house. He also said the expert witnesses couldn't state what the cause of the fire was and were motivated by anti-death penalty sentiment.

Only in Texas would the lawyer claim to be more of an expert than his expert witness.

[Queequeg]

Can anyone post a link to the video?

Among the saddest stories I've read recently. While I understand the article may be slanted, but the "killer" sounded like a reasonably decent guy who became....weirdly saintly in prison.  I guess that can put things in perspective sometimes.

[DGuller]

Here's the link to the article with the link.  The lawyer should be disbarred just for humiliating his whole field with his completely childish behavior and manner, if nothing else.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/9480/todd-willinghams-defense-lawyer-embarrasses-texas-justice-system-on-national-tv-juror-has-doubts

[Razgovory]

I'd rather have Marty as my lawyer.

[citizen k]

Here's the link ...

Thanks. I've been checking the CNN website to see if I could find at least a transcript without any luck.

[Malthus]

God help you if you are tried in Texas, I guess. 

[Berkut]

God help you if you are tried in Texas, I guess. 

There was an article on Languish before about someone being convicted of murder based on crappy arson "science". It seems like the science of arson investigation wasn't much of a science at all for a long time, while it was presented as such at trial.

Which is a bit worrisome - people get on the stand and testify as if they are *certain* of the answer to some "expert" question - but how often is anything EVER certain when it comes to science? Especially with this arson stuff.

[Valmy]

God help you if you are tried in Texas, I guess. 

We have a long and proud tradition of hanging judges and drunkard lawyers.

But seriously the vast majority of them are just fine but the way the judges and other judicial officals are selected (by vote by an apathetic public) creates tons of problems.

[Caliga]

God help you if you are tried in Texas, I guess. 

There was an article on Languish before about someone being convicted of murder based on crappy arson "science". It seems like the science of arson investigation wasn't much of a science at all for a long time, while it was presented as such at trial.

That case is very, very sad, and becoming a major thorn in Rick Perry's side--as it should be.

[Valmy]

That case is very, very sad, and becoming a major thorn in Rick Perry's side--as it should be.

I am already celebrating Senator Hutchison's inevitable triumph.

[Malthus]

God help you if you are tried in Texas, I guess. 

There was an article on Languish before about someone being convicted of murder based on crappy arson "science". It seems like the science of arson investigation wasn't much of a science at all for a long time, while it was presented as such at trial.

Which is a bit worrisome - people get on the stand and testify as if they are *certain* of the answer to some "expert" question - but how often is anything EVER certain when it comes to science? Especially with this arson stuff.

There is a procedure developing to challenge the admissibility of so-called "expert" evidence for exactly this reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

Yes, this is a US standard, but Canada has to an extent imported it. 

The problem: "expert" evidence is highly persuasive to "non-experts" (hey, which of you on the jury or sitting in the judges' bench claims to know better than a *scientist*, with the white lab coat and all?), while at the same time real science is often hedged with qualifications and doubt, particularly on the cutting edge; so "science-y" pseudo-science is very often highly persuasive (is seemingly simple and claims a single result unhedged with doubts) - often more so, to the layperson, than *real* science.

Just picture it on the stand. One "expert" is saying he's sure the guy did it, and has an impressive report to prove it. The other"expert" has doubts; his report looks just as impressive as the first guy's but he is rarely absolutely certain of anything ...

[Berkut]

What I still don't get is why this is all the more tragic because it is a DP case.

The guy being tossed in prison for the rest of his life as a result of shitty representation, procedures, and bad arson "science" is just as horrible, yet nobody cares, even though it probably happens a LOT more than someone being put to death who should not be.

[Malthus]

What I still don't get is why this is all the more tragic because it is a DP case.

The guy being tossed in prison for the rest of his life as a result of shitty representation, procedures, and bad arson "science" is just as horrible, yet nobody cares, even though it probably happens a LOT more than someone being put to death who should not be.

It's a question of endings. The case of the guy tossed in prision for life is pretty well as horrible, when he dies in prision. Up to that time, there is always the chance that someone will get interested in his case, demonstrate his innocence, and get him released. Presumably if his imprisionment was the result of culpable negligence by the athourities, he could even be compensated (to the extent you can do that with money) for his damages.

When the guy is dead no such restitution is possible.

[The Minsky Moment]

Which is a bit worrisome - people get on the stand and testify as if they are *certain* of the answer to some "expert" question - but how often is anything EVER certain when it comes to science? Especially with this arson stuff.

That's a problem, but the problem in these cases went much deeper than that.  It wasn't that exaggerated claims were being made about the reliability or certainty of a scientific method; what appears to have happened is that no scientific inquiry was made at all - rather the examiner came in with a pre-ordained conclusion and simply assembled various random "facts" that could be used to support that conclusion and packaged them together in an "expert report."