Trial by Fire - a case of death penalty in Texas

[viper37]

Very, very interesting read on a particular case of death penalty.  It's one case, but as you'll see while reading, it applies to numerous case in Texas in fact as the same "actors" appear in numerous trial ending with the death penalty.

Trial by fire - 17 pages

Interesting fact by a Texas prosecutor: going for death penalty costs 3x more than keeping the man in jail for 40 years.

[DGuller]

This is one of the most maddening cases I've ever read about.  I could never understand how so many people involved in death penalty cases seem to be unafraid to make a wrong decision.  Maybe losing ability to think critically and analytically is a necessary requirement to be able to deal with such matters in the first place.

[Razgovory]

This is one of the most maddening cases I've ever read about.  I could never understand how so many people involved in death penalty cases seem to be unafraid to make a wrong decision.  Maybe losing ability to think critically and analytically is a necessary requirement to be able to deal with such matters in the first place.

Well they are Texans.

[DGuller]

Well they are Texans.

While Texas deservedly has a bad rap for this, it's hardly the exception.  Pretty much any wrongful conviction case uncovers shocking arrogance and willful ignorance on the part of most, if not all, people involved in prosecuting the poor guy.

[The Minsky Moment]

This came up before when the Willis case (which is mentioned) was thrown out.  The new prosecutor to his credit refused to retry after conducting an independent review of Vasquez's work.  It was a bad joke - Vasquez had "investigated" over 1000 fires and ALWAYS found arson.  It was like the Soviet justice system brought to heartland USA.  Yet Willis only secured release because of major unrelated errors in his original trial.  Willingham was not so lucky.

There is a confluence of problems that come together that create these kinds of cases including:
1) Trial court judges that don't take their gatekeeping functions seriously.  In addition to the junk arson science evidence there was also the parade of highly prejudical ersatz "psychiatric" experts.
2) Breakdown of appellate review as a meaningful check with the TCA acting as a rubber stamp.
3) Second rate and poorly motivated public defenders.
4) Partisan and charged judicial elections which feed into 1 & 2.

Guller is right that these problems are hardly unique to Texas, but it does seem to be true that they have reached particular extremes there, to the point of discrediting the entire system of capital punishment nationwide.

[DGuller]

As I searched Google News on this after getting righteously indignant, I came upon this: http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/opinion/local_story_241210447.html  It's a rebuttal from the prosecutor, who is now a judge.  He says that even without the arson testimony, he's confident that Willingham would still be convicted of murder.  I don't know which possibility scares me more, that Jackson is delusional, or that he isn't.

[The Minsky Moment]

  I don't know which possibility scares me more, that Jackson is delusional, or that he isn't.

The most scary part is that he is now on the bench.

[Barrister]

Read (or at least skimmed) through all of it.

A lot of it I frankly was not concerned about.  The lack of motive, the protestations of innocence, his behaviour the day of.  Human motivation and reaction is so tremendously variable that its pointless to draw firm conclusions from it (although it can be helpful).

But what is significant is the forensic evidence.  I don't know a lot about arson investigation in partiicular, but I know in other areas there have been quite a few cases where it has been learned subsequently that a prosecution expert has been making conclusions unsupported by the current scientific concensus.  I've heard some experts speak, and they've confirmed that some of what was previously thought was never as conclusive as we thought it was at the time.

GArbon said something that struck me though.

I could never understand how so many people involved in death penalty cases seem to be unafraid to make a wrong decision.

In an effort to understand and exlpain (but not excuse), what seems to happen is this:  so much of the justice system revolves around the initial trial.  That's when the initial truth-finding is supposed to take place.

Now the prosecutor at the initial trial relied on some bogus psychiatric evidence, but he did have an expert stating conclusively that this was arson.

And dealing with experts is tricky as a lawyer.  You want to be critical of their evidence and not accept it without analysis, but they're the expert and you, well, are not.  And at the time it didn't seem like there was anything in the early 90s to call into question that expert evidence.

Then after the trial, there are few opportunities to review the case again.  You get bogged down in procedural irregularities, not de novo considerations.  You hear so many false protestations of innocence that I ignore them.  Show me hard evidence, or else you're wasting my time.

And it looks like the hard evidence only showed up extremely late in the day for Mr. Wallingham.

[DGuller]

As horrible as this case is, it doesn't compare to me being confused with garbon.

[Razgovory]

Okay, I just finished reading it and while it was long it was worth it.  That story is fucking sick.

[garbon]

WTF? I am not D4Gully. One night of poor sex does not a match make.

[The Minsky Moment]

And dealing with experts is tricky as a lawyer.  You want to be critical of their evidence and not accept it without analysis, but they're the expert and you, well, are not.  And at the time it didn't seem like there was anything in the early 90s to call into question that expert evidence.

Assessing the quality and reliability of experts is a basic part of a lawyer's job.  One obvious red flag is a guy who is always  giving the same opinions over and over again in every case.  If it is an area that lawyer is unfamiliar with then it is not uncommon to talk to more than one person or get a second or third opinion.

This guy apparently gave expert testimony in between 1200 and 1500 cases and could not recall ever coming to the conclusion that no arson was involved.  It is pretty obvious that his job was to rubber stamp the conclusion of a police investigation with the illusion of scientific expertise.  There was at least one local prosecutor who refused to go along with this charade, but others were happy to continue business as usual.  I think it speaks to a dysfunctional culture of criminal justice in the context of state where the criminal justice system is highly politicized.

[Valmy]

While Texas deservedly has a bad rap for this, it's hardly the exception.

Lots of convictions make the elected judiciary look good and keeps them in office.

After all we would not want un-elected God Emperors legislating from the bench of anything.

[KRonn]

As I searched Google News on this after getting righteously indignant, I came upon this: http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/opinion/local_story_241210447.html  It's a rebuttal from the prosecutor, who is now a judge.  He says that even without the arson testimony, he's confident that Willingham would still be convicted of murder.  I don't know which possibility scares me more, that Jackson is delusional, or that he isn't.

Remember that prosecutor in the Duke University rape case? Just kept pushing a losing cause, had to know things were wrong, but he couldn't let go as he had his mind on political aspirations, apparently. Until the whole thing fell down around him and he would up in disgrace. This kind of thing happens often enough, the arrogance and pigheadedness.

[DGuller]

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?