Innocent, but Executed

In his final hours on death row, Cameron Todd Willingham and his attorneys tried frantically to show the governor of Texas a new scientific report proving his innocence. The evidence was apparently ignored, and Willingham was executed on February 17, 2004.

During his trial, he refused prosecutors' offer to give him life in prison instead of the death penalty. He told them he was innocent, and he wouldn't agree to any deals. As he was strapped down in the execution chamber, just before the lethal injection began, he proclaimed his innocence one last time.

An extraordinary new investigative report in the New Yorker shows that Willingham was telling the truth. He was innocent. David Grann's report, in the September 7 issue, exhaustively deconstructs every aspect of the case and shows that none of the evidence used to convict Willingham was valid. Since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1974, Grann's report constitutes the strongest case on record in this country that an innocent man was executed.

Willingham was convicted of murdering his two young children by arson. He spent 12 years on death row in Texas before he was executed. Forensic science that supposedly proved the fire was intentionally set was central to Willingham's conviction was, in fact, completely invalid -- which the experts who testified should have known in 1992. A state forensic science commission in Texas is officially looking into the case and selected a widely respected expert to analyze whether the forensic testimony was valid. Last week the expert filed a report confirming what five other leading arson experts have found -- what passed for arson analysis in the Willingham case had no scientific basis, and the scientific facts in Willingham's case were the same as the case of Ernest Willis. In an entirely separate case, Willis was sent to death row in Texas for an arson murder of family members but, luckily, in his the state recognized the arson analysis was wrong. Willis was fully exonerated just months after Willingham was executed.

The state forensic commission in Texas is still finishing its work on Willingham's case, but David Grann's New Yorker article examines the entire case, including the jailhouse informant who plainly gave false testimony and the circumstantial evidence, flimsy in the first place, that was not what it appeared to be to the jury. After reading Grann's report, fair-minded people will know beyond a reasonable doubt that an innocent person was executed

So what now? Whether our criminal justice system has executed an innocent man should no longer be an open question. We don't know how often it happens, but we know it has happened. Cameron Todd Willingham's case proves that.

The focus turns to how we can stop it from happening again. As long as our system of justice makes mistakes -- including the ultimate mistake -- we cannot continue executing people.

At the same time, the problems in the Willingham case are not limited to people facing the death penalty. The Innocence Project has found that forensic science problems were a factor in 50 percent of all wrongful convictions that were later overturned with DNA testing. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences found that many forensic disciplines are not rooted in solid science. The report called on Congress to create a National Institute of Forensic Science to set nationwide standards and ensure that evidence used in criminal cases is sufficiently scientific. This can be done cost-effectively and without creating a large bureaucracy.

It's not just possible to improve forensic science in this country -- it's imperative. If Cameron Todd Willingham's case teaches us nothing else, it should make improving the reliability of our criminal justice system a top priority nationwide. It's not enough to feel bad that an innocent man was executed; we must use this moment to do better.

Barry Scheck is Co-Director of the Innocence Project.

 

 

Comments

[AN2009]

Here's the link for David Grann's article in the New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

[sloeride]

Thanks Barry. I'm a small time SPD in Conn...worked with some good folk you probably know. Anyway, the way I see it, is that after reading Mark Levin's Liberty & Tyranny, the argument to get conservatives to come around on the D.P. is what I think is a novel tack. That is, one must (excuse all caps, if so offensive):

NEVER GRANT POWER TO THE STATE TO EXECUTE PEOPLE.

Those in power --- regardless of affiliation or position --- have biases.
True, sometimes, biases cancel each other out.
Still, this is not certain, thus the State can never be trusted completely.
And if trust is not complete, then trust does not exist.
The power to decide who lives or dies should not be given to an authority that isn't trustworthy.

[noneIn2008]

Why would you give a government that fouls everything it touches, the power to execute prisoners? Want to free up the prisons, get rid of the victimless crimes.

[we0z]

When I served on jury duty my first time the observation that stood out to me about our judicial system is that the quality of justice meted out to the defendant is directly proportional to the defendants ability to pay. And ever since then it became apparent to me that many of the condemed are their because of how corrupt our system can be and until something is done to prevent the corruption that sends the innocent to death I could never be absolutely sure of guilt as a result.

[lilidawn22]

FYI, if you have read the New Yorker article, James P. Grigson, "Dr. Death," is still practicing psychiatry in Dallas

[incognito101]

I just started to look at all the fraud convictions that are posted daily on: www.BackgroundNow.com
and you will be amazed as to how many govt. officials they are nationally. What happens when the sheriff of 30 odd years is sentenced for corruption and bribery. This was in WV, a fairly poor state, I wonder how many innocent people went to jail?

Capital Punishment, not us, we don't have that, do we? I thought it was barbarian Taliban!!!

[DodgerFan1988]

So-called Law & Order Conservatives are hypocrites because they are against the prosecution of District Attorneys and Police Officers who knowing sends innocent people to jail.

[Silas Barnaby]

I'm conservative and I wouldn't trust a district attorney as far as I could throw him.

[Mac Williams]

There needs to be a law that anyone in law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges involved in a case in which an innocent person is executed are guilty of involuntary manslaughter and can be themselves punished accordingly.

[offred]

We need to erect a very visible monument where we can carve the names of those innocent people who were wrongly executed, preferably with room to bury the victims of capital punishment.

Every time a victim is buried, we need to present enough of a show that the media will HAVE TO COVER IT, rather than spend its coverage on the celebrity scandal du jour. If it would help get media coverage, I'd strip and paint myself red, white and blue. Any joiners?

[jimspy]

Not me, but can I get an 8x10?

[offred]

Honey, I didn't say it would be attractive.

[offred]

I also want to see Judge Sharon Keller punished for refusing to keep an office open after 5 p.m. for an appeal for a man who was scheduled to be executed that evening.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/17/texas.judge.misconduct/

Texas executes more people than any other state in the union. Secede already, Texans.

Just pay back all the federal and stimulus funds you've gotten first.

[jinxed]

Can't get blood out of a rock ... don't forget for every dollar Texas pays in they get five in return,

[offred]

So who goes to jail for killing Cameron Todd Willingham?

[Fang1044]

No matter how much we improve forensic science, a jury will still be made up of people who are often stupid, biased, or mentally lazy. We should abolish the death penalty because innocent people are often convicted--just as guilty people often get off.

[wastelandusa]

"a jury will still be made up of people who are often stupid, biased, or mentally lazy."

And in this case, his court-appointed lawyer would be all those things, too. The New Yorker article actually has a quote from him, presumably in the very near past, where he said that he was 'clearly' guilty, and anybody suggesting otherwise is delusional. Or something very near that. You can have your doubts, but to review all the facts of this case as it stands today and say that it's not debatable that he's guilty is something that is to be so absurd and incomprehensible that you wonder how this man puts his pants on in the morning, let alone how he "practices" law.

Let's face it, every conceivable safety-net put in place to prevent an innocent man from dying for a crime he did not commit failed here, and it failed spectacularly. From the Supreme Court, Appeals Board and Governor all taking a complete pass on giving his case due diligence when new evidence arose, to a supremely incompetent defense attorney, to fire investigators that were equally incompetent... this is the US Judicial system at its absolute, pathetic nadir.

[countfloyd]

If juries are made up of people who are often stupid, biased, or mentally lazy then we have a much bigger problem then the death penalty. Do you have a suggestion as to how our legal system should be changed,

[jimspy]

For one thing, everyone who signs off on an execution - the judge, the forensic pathologists, the DAs, the prosecutors - everyone (with the exception of jurors, whom we agree are stupid and can't be held that responsible) should automatically be dismissed from their post as soon as it has been determined they were wrong. They should be staking their jobs on such a life-or-death decision.

[RickyJ]

I think, but can't prove, that other legal systems have more accurate results. First of all, both sides should hand their case in writing to a tribunal, at least 3 professional and lay judges, who decide what witnesses to call and do most of the questioning. Letting the case be presented by the advocates to a passive jury, often composed or ignoramuses, is not the best way. I think the deciders should be the tribunal, possibly augmented but a jury. Some countries like Holland and Norway allow up to three appeals where the evidence is gone over by different tribunal. They can do that because the trials are so much more efficient.

[jimthefireman]

After 37 years as a professional firefighter, including 2 years in fulltime fire investigation I fully appreciate just how easy it is for an investigator to "find" evidence to fit a preconception rather than carefully work through the evidence to find a probably cause. It can be difficult to admit to uncertainty, but it is better than pretending something is "proved" just to close the file. It is also the duty of an investigator to ensure that their own words or conclusions are not misrepresented by a prosecutor in court in an important case, if they are to ensure that the court hears "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as the oath requires. If the prosecution refuse to listen to concerns then the defence should be approached if necessary.
The law quite properly holds those who only drive the getaway car in part responsible for a murder carried out by the bank robber. They may not have known the person they were helping was going to kill someone, but by helping the killer get away once a killing has occurred, they became part of it.
So to, those who give evidence in a capital case, where they know, or should know that the evidence is flawed become part of the homicide comitted when an innocent is killed. No system is perfect, but we have a duty of care to protect life and that particularly extends to those whose life the state would take in the interstes of Justice.

[offred]

"So to, those who give evidence in a capital case, where they know, or should know that the evidence is flawed become part of the homicide comitted when an innocent is killed."

Excellent point, jimthefireman.

[jimthefireman]

What is an innocent person to do when faced with the prospect of execution unless they "admit" to their guilt? Those who live by the simple principle of refusing to lie to save their own lives will be martyred by an American legal system, founded on noble principles but now apparently utterly unconcerned about putting to death an innocent.
Where is the simple concern with right and wrong? You don't balance guilty people being released to the community by convicting a few innocent ones along the way! The adversarial system of Justice is designed to bring vigorous argument to the debate, but it is easy for those involved to forget they also administer Justice, and there should be no place for uncertainty to be presented as fact or for deliberate misleading of the Jury by either defence or prosecution.

[pizzmoe]

Was there ever any doubt that innocent people were executed?

[SethBLiNK]

Not in many people's mind, but this is the first one where there is incontrovertable evidence that has been brought forth. Great article about it in the New Yorker.