Trial by Firefight
In The Life of David Gale, a 2003 film starring Kevin Spacey, an innocent man is put to death.
In real life, David Grann, a writer for the New Yorker, reported last month that an innocent man was put to death. While there are marked differences between the fictional account and the real-life execution it might have presaged—Spacey's character, for instance, is accused of rape and murder, while Cameron Todd Willingham, the man put to death in 2004, was convicted of killing his three children by arson—the similarities are eerie.
In the two stories, both are down-on-their-luck. Both drink. Both forge relationships with female advocates who work fruitlessly for their release. Both maintain their innocence until the end. Both are executed in Texas, where 18 inmates were executed in 2008. And after death, both lay claim to what Grann calls the "grisly Holy Grail among opponents of capital punishment": a verifiable case of wrongful execution, what Sandra Day O'Connor once decreed a "constitutionally intolerable event."
Life can imitate art, but only up to a point. A point breached last week, when Texas Governor Rick Perry replaced the chairman and two members of the committee that was to hear new evidence on the Willingham case. The new commissioner, John Bradley, has been called "one of the most conservative, hard-line prosecutors in Texas." Sam Bassett, the outgoing commissioner, worried, "I certainly hope this change is not about political concerns." Yet on the same day that a leading arson expert was set to testify, Bradley suspended the hearings. As Time reports, the expert testimony has "been put off until Bradley sets a hearing, and he has not indicated when, or if, he will, saying he needs to talk to state leaders about the role of the commission."
It's clear that Willingham was (mis)tried by a kangaroo court, but will justice be better served by the media zoo that's ensued?
Grann's exposé hasn't quite triggered a tipping point, but it has become a powerful rallying point for liberal pundits. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert resolved: "It was an accident. No crime had occurred." Dahlia Lithwick announced on Slate that "we have finally found one." Decided Barry Scheck, the Innocence Project co-founder who was interviewed for the New Yorker article, "He was innocent." Grann has since been interviewed on MSNBC and NPR. As in David Gale, it would appear to be an edifying finale.
But that's where the credits refuse to roll. For his part, Governor Perry has derided what he calls "latter day experts" for ignoring "clear and compelling, overwhelming evidence that [Willingham] was in fact the murderer of his children." Similarly, John Jackson, the original prosecutor, and now a Texas judge, issued a rejoinder to Grann, in which he reaffirmed the guilty verdict, and argued that Willingham "should not be anyone's poster child."
Grann's response seemed to crystallize the adversarial nature of the media storm: "The Prosecution Defends Itself."
The he said, she said becomes intellectually frustrating for readers. On the one hand, we want to believe Grann's deft, poignant and eminently compelling story. But on the other hand, we're stung by shards of evidentiary doubt, such as a news story from 2004 that attributes a string of epithets to Willingham in the moments before he died—in direct contradiction to the last words Grann reports.
Which is not to cast doubt on the reportage, but only to acknowledge the inherent limits of the medium.
"The one thing that I hope doesn't happen," Grann told me, "is that it becomes simply about blame, and that overshadows what's most important, which is what the case addresses."
As journalists, our job is to hold up the mirror, as Walter Cronkite famously put it. Grann has masterfully accomplished that task. Beyond that, a sustained media circus is an ill wind that blows no one but Rick Perry any good. The press cannot be jury, judge and exonerator. As Grann said, what's at stake here are "systemic issues," not just of truth and justice for one man, but of the American way.
The great danger is that Willingham will be doubly denied justice: found guilty in a drumhead court-martial, and innocent in a mock trial. Neither an act of God nor a piece of journalism will vindicate Willingham or confute the death penalty. The example that disproves the rule, the cinematic finish, the elusive Holy Grail is now, as before, a question of law.
Follow Rob Fishman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rbfishman
Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, and the death penalty : The New Yorker
Texas Governor Defends Shakeup of Commission
Texas panel reviews ruling that led to execution
Hutchison disagrees with Perry on commission move
Editorial: Perry's certainty about execution ignores science
Perry defends disputed '04 execution of Corsicana man
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Our entire system of justice is composed of procedures which don't--and can't--achieve the degree of accuracy which it morality demands before we can deliberately kill a man.
Where we can be certain, as in the sniper, it's despite the workings of the justice system, not because of it.
In any criminal, there is an enormous tail of judgement calls on everything from search warrants to the admissability of evidence or the testimony of expert witnesses which are not made on the basis of absolute certainty. In any kind of quality control context, the quality of the result can never be greater than the quality of the ingredients. These ingredients do not enable us to declare that any verdict reached by this process is so sure that we can kill another human.
In a country where there are two sets of laws, (one for the wealthy and powerfull, and one for the poor and powerless) this is not an unusual case. Alan Dershowitz wrote a book about the FACT that POLICE LYING in court is STANDARD PROCEDURE!! Personally, I have had police reports written about me, where the only truth in it was my name.........Police reports are always edited to justify their actions.....
Mr. Fishman,
You defend the indefensible idea that responsible journalism is limited to presenting both sides of an argument as if both are equally valid, even when a little extra work would discover that one side is wrong. Your view is stenography, not journalism.
The issue is whether the fire was caused by accident or set by someone. The prosecution witness who testified that it was set was not qualified by education, training, or experience to testify as an expert and his opinion was not supported by accepted scientific and forensic analysis that conclusively determined the fire was caused by accident.
Whether Mr. Willingham was a nice person or a disagreeable jerk is irrelevant since no one started the fire, and the State of Texas should review what went wrong, why it went wrong, and what should be done to prevent the State of Texas from murdering an innocent person in the future. The David Gale film is a fictional account based on the absurd premise that to establish an innocent person was executed, a man and a terminally ill woman conspired to stage her suicide to look like he killed her so that he would be charged, convicted, sentenced to death, and executed.
Governor Perry, who rejected Mr. Willingham's last-minute request for a pardon based on new evidence establishing his innocence in 2004, has now interfered with the review process. His motivation is relevant to his fitness to govern, an issue journalists should be investigating and reporting.
All human enterprise is fraught with the possibility of error. Those that have little chance of egregious harm get little notice or oversight: and that's fine. Those where more serious harm can be done - most especially those with the danger of death - must (and usually do) have the most stringent oversight and review.
But even oversight and review are human endeavors; we are not infallible. Forensic science advances, new techniques are explored and advanced. We ALWAYS know more today than we did yesterday.
What does this say about having other humans responsible for deciding to put another to death? Unless there is video of someone committing a crime, there must be some doubt (and today, even that can be faked).
There is no real sense of justice and decency in this state. There are only cries for blood and the masturbatory personal satisfaction of revenge.
Elected officials, from judges to the governor, juries, and prosecutors in Texas are by and large obsessed with being "tough on crime" to the point of murderous hysteria.
http://camerontoddwillingham.com/?page_id=6
Sign the petition to Governor Rick Perry and the State of Texas to acknowledge that the fire in the Cameron Todd Willingham case was not arson, therefore no crime was committed and on February 17, 2004, Texas executed an innocent man.
Already did.
The idea that anyone, whose case contains reasonable doubt should be put to death, is just as is stated, a "systemic issue" that needs to be addressed. In fact, the system--all of them-- and its desire to maintain itself are at the heart of all problems in our country. People like Troy Davis sit in jail for 18 years without ever having an investigation into his alleged crime because the Georgian police and judicial system rather a man die than admit they made a mistake. If there is nothing to hide, let the story out. Same with our foster care system. The children are completely ignored and the system runs as it wants, playing God with other people's lives. Anyone who stands up for a child or against "their way" is pushed aside; they are invested in keeping it this way. Most of the time we sit idly by and voice our concerns every four years. If we did this on a daily basis, we would probably find more purpose in our lives while at the same time assisting those stuck in our failed systems. Speak up and speak up again. It is the only way. And if you have annoyed someone, you are probably right on track.
One wonders if our Attorney General, who is still alive despite lack of sightings, reads stories like this?
Eric Holder, whose nickname might be Eric the Held, broke his recent self-sequestration by appearing in Chicago, the city where youth violence is rampant, the city which was dispatced from Olympics' consideration much like a pimp might be for Pastor of the Month. I might mention that, in watching all the pep-rallies, I saw no coverage mentioning that Chicago's preeminent violence might factor at all in the decision in Copenhagen. Instead, I was subjected to a mini-opera of maudlin tears and incredulous shock--very reminiscent of survivor shows, which always seem to conclude with losers emoting these two particular reactions.
The fact that Holder chooses, or is chosen, to represent himself as role model of official concern only after the casual, sunny afternoon slaughter of a music nerd on the war-zone streets of the Windy City, and--unless I have missed the memos, not before--while ignoring the incidents of insulting retro justice, particularly in Texas, begs one to wonder if the Attorney General's defense of our legal system is based more on putting out political fires that in over-seeing national justice.
Has crime finally become selectively invisible in America, on the streets and in our courtrooms, and not just in the halls of corporate America?
Does Eric Holder realize that he has a job, and not just a position?
Stupendously well said.
Jay, you said:
"I saw no coverage mentioning that Chicago's preeminent violence might factor at all in the decision in Copenhagen."
I need to point out that Rio was selected. One of the most violent cities in the world.
Your point is well taken.
I may be wrong, but I think it is still quite legal in Brazil to snuff your wife if she in any way threatens your quick-to-bristle, pride-heavy ego. Interestingly, our media is quick to point out these kind of retro barbarisms towards women when the players are Muslim, but we hear much less coverage about any of this when the players are Christian.
But the point of my comment was that it was incumbent upon our media to report this obvious elephant in the room--this remarkably escalated violence in Chicago, and specifically the high number of random, senseless murders--and dutifully report it.
Given the statistics I have seen, I would hesitate to plan to spend some time there, especially if I were not wealthy.
There is some argument to be made by the politicians we must endure who resemble the mayor of Amity Island that such coverage might hurt our chances. But there is no argument to be made that such a consideration should not be discussed after we incurred the loss.
The Attorney General is quickly dispatched to Chicago after the Olympics vote, and still no link is made by the media that the two by some slight chance might be linked.
Incidentally, I do not think that Eric Holder is the messiah Chicagoans are waiting for.
The problem with the Death Penalty is that it is always fatal but not always correct. When it can be instituted infallibly, then perhaps it should be applied.
Texas justice is an oxymoron. Texas is super quick at the execution switch. In most states, once a prisoner is executed, his files are destroyed. That precludes determining whether a wrongful execution took place some years in the future when new technology might prove innocence. Governor Perry now does this exactly by precluding this hearing.
I have suggested to Senator Webb of Virginia that he hold federal hearings on this subject. He has an interest in our overcrowded prison system, and in our brutal sentencing scheme. I'm certain he has an interest in wrongful execution as well. This issue of wrongful execution is a matter of national interest, and goes to the heart of the death penalty - executing an innocent person.
The Supreme Court has already spoken to this matter. So long as a 'fair trial' and all procedures were followed correctly, the execution of an innocent person is allowed.
That's America's death penalty for you.
One wonders if our attorney general, who is still alive despite lack of sightings, reads stuff like this while he taps the dust from his immaculate loafers or sips his lottes?
Eric Holder, otherwise known sarcastically as Eric the Held, has finally put to rest rumors that he cannot surface, at least when summoned to do so, by appearing in Chicago, the home of perhaps the world's most prevalent host to youth violence, and which is not host to the olympics. Strangely, throughout the pep rally regarding Chicago, we heard scant about the violence in Chicago, and how that might have factored in it's most early dismissal.
Well, thought this one was lost, and I started over.
There is some key on my board that is like the button on a land mine.
Sometimes lost in the comforting reverie of paranoia, I imagine it to be the faceless red pencil herein employed to insure quality and absence of ad hominems and other tortables, other times my ex-wife who never fooled me about her links to hell, and at times the One who laughs down, dishing out immediate karma, more with the relish of the redder Jehovah than the bluer Jesus.
Sorry for the double post.
First off, I want to say that I am an advocate of the death penalty. However, I think it should be used in only the most heinous crimes, where there is overwhelming evidence. I read the New Yorker article, and I believe that an innocent man was killed by the state. Govenor Perry, who calls himself a religious man, needs to stop playing politics, man up, and investigate the matter properly. If he doesn't then the Justice Department needs to step in and do the dirty work. If the JD finds that TX executed an innocent man, and that Gov Perry disregarded new evidence in the appeals process then ALL scheduled executions in TX should be put on hold.
Agreed & fanned. When I was 13 years old, some friends of mine had a cousin who was executed in Virginia. I did not know him personally, but the matter remained with me. Years later, I researched the case. The man was one of four people involved in a burglary and murder, but he was the only one condemned. Whether you're for or against the death penalty, it's not hard to find a problem with that picture.
I used to be against the death penalty, but over the years I became ambivalent about it. I have no doubt that Willingham was innocent, and his case makes me sick. I'm sure he is not the first innocent person executed in this country, and unfortunately he won't be the last.
I don't expect Perry to be forthright about this situation. The Justice Department should indeed get involved. Even then, no real justice can ever be done, because Willingham can't be brought back to life.
I have met many people that told me the problem with the death penalty is that not enough people are executed. However, even the biggest death penalty cheerleader does not want an innocent man executed. The Innocence Project and others have managed to put doubts in people's minds about the death penalty. Proving somebody's innocence is tough, but it is the nagging doubts, conscience if you will, that have diminished the enthusiasm for the death penalty. The more talk, the better. I believe executions should be carried live, on television. This will disgust people so much that this barbarism will be abolished, forever.
Unfortunately, televising executions will probably not lead to abolition. Executions used to be carried out in public, all over the world, and in some countries they still are. They've always been big events, here and elsewhere. People just get desensitized.
The guillotining of murderer Eugen Weidman, in France in 1939, was filmed and is on the Internet. The only reason I haven't seen it, is because I don't want to. Even though the execution was carried out at dawn, a huge crowd turned out and had themselves a great party. The French president was deeply embarrassed. So what did he do? Simply made all subsequent executions private. Capital punishment remained legal in France for another 42 years.
Texas executed an innocent man...
...probably not for the first time.
Seems to me that Gov Perry has something to hide...like maybe the execution of an innocent man.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
