"THAT ASIDE, WE HAVE STRONG EVIDENCE OF BRADLEY'S ATTITUDE TOWARD 21ST CENTURY FORENSIC SCIENCE. FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS, AS WILLIAMSON COUNTY DA, BRADLEY DOGGEDLY OPPOSED DNA TESTING REQUESTED BY PRO BONO COUNSEL JOHN RALEY, WHO IS REPRESENTING CONVICTED MURDERER MICHAEL MORTON. RALEY SOUGHT A FORM OF DNA TESTING, WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE AT THE TIME OF THE 1987 CONVICTION, TO BE CONDUCTED ON A BLOODY BANDANA FOUND ALONG MORTON'S ALLEGED ESCAPE ROUTE AFTER THE SLAYING OF MORTON'S WIFE.
A TEXAS STATE APPEALS COURT HAS GRANTED THE MOTION TO TEST THE BLOODY BANDANA AND OVERRULED BRADLEY'S MOTION FOR REHEARING. THE COURT RECOGNIZED THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MORTON, THAT THERE WAS TESTIMONY AS TO BOTH GUILT AND INNOCENCE, AND THAT THE BANDANA MIGHT YIELD EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM'S AND ANOTHER PERSON'S DNA, SUPPORTING MORTON'S THEORY THAT THE TRUE ASSAILANT ESCAPED OVER HIS BACKYARD FENCE AND DOWN A WOODED PATH. IN HIS ZEAL TO PREVENT DNA TESTING IN THE MORTON CASE, BRADLEY MAY BE INADVERTENTLY PROTECTING THE GUILTY AS HE SEEKS TO UPHOLD THE CONVICTION."
POLITICSDAILY.COM; (Editor in Chief Melinda Henneberger describes PoliticsDaily.com as "an online newspaper for the general reader updated every day, throughout the day. Since our launch on April 27, 2009, we’ve worked hard to distinguish ourselves the old-fashioned way, with heavily reported, well-written stories produced by some of the best reporters and editors in the business. We offer a mix of straight news and opinion -- and a mix of views in our reported commentary. What PoliticsDaily.com offers is effectively counter-programming; instead of attempting to dominate the 10-second news cycle, our goal is to offer a thoughtful take on events. We value writing at a moment when the conventional wisdom says that nothing could matter less. Our pieces are longer than others on the Web – and to those who argue that that can’t possibly work, I would point to our 10 million unique visitors in the month of January, and to the fact that some of our longest stories have also been the most widely read. Another way in which we're different is that all of our writers are paid for their work. In a New York Times column not long before our launch, Nicholas Kristof worried in print about whether, as ink-on-paper news outlets disappeared, we'd get more and more of our information from highly partisan sources that only confirm and never challenge our existing biases. PoliticsDaily.com aims to be the antidote to that impulse, offering smart pieces from across the ideological spectrum.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In 1992, a Texas jury convicted Cameron Todd Willingham of capital murder for setting a 1991 home fire that killed his wife and three children," the May 8, 2010 column by Barbara Ann Radnofsky begins, under the heading, "Secrecy and Science: Debate Over Fate of Cameron Todd Willingham.'
"Willingham maintained his innocence until his execution in 2004," the column, published in politicsdaily.com continues.
"Now, six years later, a little-known Texas state commission headed by John Bradley, the district attorney of Williamson County, just resumed an investigation into whether the Willingham fire was, in fact, caused by arson.
Serious doubts raised by arson experts about the scientific evidence and testimony presented at Willingham's trial prompted an official inquiry by the nine-member Texas Forensic Science Commission.
In October 2009, the commission was poised to hear a report from nationally recognized fire expert Craig Beyler, who believed key evidence used to convict Willingham had no basis in modern fire science, raising the possibility that the deadly blaze was an accident, not deliberate.
Days before the commission was scheduled to hear the report, Republican Gov. Rick Perry removed the head of the commission and two members and appointed Bradley as chairman. Bradley postponed the meeting and only recently restarted the inquiry, although the commission has yet to hear from Beyler.
But beyond that, Bradley has proposed sweeping changes in the way the commission conducts its business. He wants to keep secret several important functions of the commission now open to the public. Under his plan, no longer would Texans be able to review investigations, deliberations, and final report preparation. Importantly, he also seeks to expand the power of the commission to have a role "in the development of best practices in the various fields of forensic science."
That's not a good idea because Bradley seeks to make his commission's "scientific" investigations increasingly immune from public scrutiny.
Bradley claimed in a letter to the public written shortly after his appointment last October that "most state agencies with investigative and deliberative functions are protected by laws designed to keep such information confidential until a final decision is released. Unfortunately, the law creating the Commission does not include the protections." There is no presumption of confidentiality for the commission's work; the opposite is true. Bradley's commission does not determine guilt or innocence. The commission currently has no authority to make recommendations, to set ongoing "best practices," or to operate in secret. The members, appointed by the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general, are required to launch "timely" investigations of any allegation of professional negligence or misconduct by labs, facilities or entities conducting forensic analysis, such as DNA testing, that would substantially affect the integrity of the results. The law also requires that all investigative reports be available to the public.
Texas should resist all efforts by the presiding officer of the Forensic Science Commission to expand his power. Such a move would be out of step with the state's orderly march into 21st century criminal law and science.
Texas already has enacted legislation for post-conviction DNA testing, standards for DNA analysis, controls for maintenance of a DNA database, and a compensation law for people who are wrongly convicted. And the Texas legislature has established the Tim Cole Advisory Panel, which is looking into the causes and prevention of wrongful conviction. The Cole panel will study whether reforms in other states can improve the Texas criminal justice system. It will look into stricter rules for eyewitness identification and recording police interrogations, as well as use of post-conviction DNA testing.
As for the Forensic Science Commission, it appears the chairman's goal is to slow investigations until after the 2010 elections. The Texas legislature and the attorney general from whom Bradley has sought advice would be ill advised to give him additional authority. The new mission and the secrecy he seeks would enhance his current delaying tactics in the Willingham case.
That aside, we have strong evidence of Bradley's attitude toward 21st century forensic science. For the last five years, as Williamson County DA, Bradley doggedly opposed DNA testing requested by pro bono counsel John Raley, who is representing convicted murderer Michael Morton. Raley sought a form of DNA testing, which was not possible at the time of the 1987 conviction, to be conducted on a bloody bandana found along Morton's alleged escape route after the slaying of Morton's wife.
A Texas state appeals court has granted the motion to test the bloody bandana and overruled Bradley's motion for rehearing. The court recognized the circumstantial nature of the evidence against Morton, that there was testimony as to both guilt and innocence, and that the bandana might yield evidence of the victim's and another person's DNA, supporting Morton's theory that the true assailant escaped over his backyard fence and down a wooded path. In his zeal to prevent DNA testing in the Morton case, Bradley may be inadvertently protecting the guilty as he seeks to uphold the conviction.
At the Forensic Science Commission, Bradley should be limited to carrying out the commission's charge to investigate past wrongdoings and errors, not make broader findings. The legislature's goals, as well as Bradley's apparent personal biases against DNA evidence and opposition to revisiting old facts with proven science, call for careful scrutiny of his commission's work, and the need to keep it transparent.
The Texas legislature, courts, and dedicated lawyers, and the Cole Advisory Panel, will do more to continue modern criminal justice reform by opposing new powers for the Texas Forensic Science Commission."
The column can be found at:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/08/cameron-todd-willingham-and-the-debate-over-secrecy-and-science/
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
