STORY: "Former Texas Prosecutor Probably Sent Innocent Man to His Death. Now He’s on Trial for Misconduct," by Jordan Smith, published by The Intercept on May 2, 2017. (J
ordan Smith is a state and national award-winning
investigative journalist based in Austin, Texas. She has covered
criminal justice for nearly 20 years and during that time has developed a
reputation as a resourceful and dogged reporter with a talent for
analyzing complex social and legal issues, and is regarded as one of the
best investigative reporters in Texas. Her work has also appeared in The Nation, The Crime Report, and Salon, among other places.)
GIST:
"The courthouse in Corsicana,
Texas, roughly 60 miles southeast of Dallas, has been meticulously
restored to its original 1905 glory, a time when the county was awash in
oil money. Its main courtroom has soaring, two-story pink walls
and gold-flecked architectural details that frame the judge’s bench,
witness stand, and jury box. For more than three decades, John Jackson
worked this room (though during those years it was a far more
utilitarian space), first as a prosecutor with the Navarro County
district attorney’s office and later as an elected judge, until his
retirement in 2012. Last week he returned, this time as a defendant, facing charges
brought by the State Bar of Texas, whose lawyers argue that Jackson
violated basic legal ethics in connection with his conduct in
prosecuting the county’s most notorious case, the death penalty trial of
Cameron Todd Willingham, who was convicted and ultimately executed for
what the state insists was the December 1991 arson-murder of his three
young children in the home they shared just over a mile away. Specifically, the state’s lawyers contend that Jackson made a deal
with a jailhouse snitch who agreed to testify against Willingham and
then hid that deal from Willingham’s defense attorneys — a clear
violation of both law and ethics. They say that Jackson took
extraordinary measures over the next two decades to conceal his
deceitful actions. “It is a duty of the prosecution — an ethical obligation — to turn
over that evidence,” state bar lawyer Kristin Brady told jurors in her
opening arguments last Wednesday afternoon. “For years he protected this
snitch; for years. It wasn’t for [the snitch’s] protection, it was for
his own protection.” The prosecution of Willingham has been widely
reported
and litigated, in part because his conviction was secured on twin
pillars of evidence known to wreak havoc in the criminal justice system:
junk science and incentivized
snitch testimony. Where the junk science is concerned, there is now little question
that the fire that killed Willingham’s children was not arson — caused,
as the state claimed, by Willingham spreading lighter fluid around his
house and setting it ablaze. Leading fire scientists have weighed in to
say that the evidence the Corsicana Fire Department and Texas fire
marshal investigator relied upon in fingering Willingham as the cause of
the deadly blaze was based on outdated, discredited fire-science
folklore. It is the second basis of the prosecution, however, that underlies Jackson’s current civil disciplinary trial. In short, lead prosecutor Jackson called a man named Johnny Webb to
testify at Willingham’s 1992 trial to say that while he was locked up in
the county jail on an aggravated robbery charge, his fellow inmate,
Willingham, randomly, and in detail, confessed to Webb his alleged
crime. Under questioning by Jackson, Webb asserted that he did not
expect any benefit in exchange for his incriminating testimony. In the years since Willingham’s 2004 execution, significant evidence
has come to light indicating that was untrue.........By 8 a.m. on April 26, the day Jackson’s trial commenced, the
Corsicana courthouse was crawling with security — including cops in army
green flak jackets patrolling the exterior and interior of the
building. One deputy said the extra show of force was deemed necessary
simply because of the high-profile nature of the case. Others have
intimated it was because of possible threats, presumably to Jackson
and/or Webb, by members of the Aryan Brotherhood, allegedly hostile to
the state’s case against Willingham. The county’s law enforcement machine was ready for any eventuality —
and regardless of whether the threats were legitimate, it made for a
significant show of force for the jurors required to march in and out of
the courtroom past the armed officers. Byrne, Jackson’s attorney, played the security to good effect. In
asking Jackson about other actions he took to help Webb — notably,
issuing two bench warrants to bring Webb back to the county jail to
serve out part of his sentence — he gestured to the deputies in the
courtroom. Of course Jackson would want to bring the vulnerable Webb
back to the county where he would be guarded by sheriff’s employees,
people Jackson trusted, who worked every day to keep residents of the
county safe — including, he noted, the jurors currently sitting in
judgment. Jackson, now 66, who has slightly stooped shoulders, a lispy
Texas drawl, and a face that rests in a half-smile, nodded knowingly. Much of Byrne’s trial strategy seemed to be based in this kind of
tribalism: Jackson worked to keep the county safe from child murderers
such as Willingham and bent over backward to help a troubled young man,
Johnny Webb, who helped to put a monster in prison. Why would such a man
do anything unethical or illegal to make that happen? Byrne spent much of his opening argument focused on the years of
litigation in the Willingham case — at one point even suggesting that
current fire science is actually unreliable, bought and paid for by
out-of-state forces like the Innocence Project (which filed the initial
ethics complaint
with the bar in 2014 on behalf of Willingham’s relatives), whereas the
investigation that fingered Willingham for murder was solid. The message
was clear: Outside forces are using the state bar and its trumped-up
ethics charge to try to bring down a good man. Indeed, Byrne has worked hard to get Judge Farr to allow into
evidence as much of the grisly detail of the children’s deaths and
negative evidence regarding Willingham’s character as possible, much to
the consternation of bar lawyer Kristin Brady, who was clearly
exasperated by Byrne’s histrionics. Almost all of the trial’s third day
was spent with the lawyers arguing this issue outside the presence of
the jury, whose 15 members spent the day cooling their heels. The details are necessary to show how strong a case Jackson had
against Willingham, Byrne argued — so strong that he didn’t even need to
call Webb as a witness, let alone make and then conceal a deal with
him. But the case details aren’t “relevant to anything,” Brady argued,
“because [Jackson] still used Webb.” The grim details would serve only
to prejudice the jury. Byrne later retorted, “I hope it’s prejudicial.” But Byrne’s approach obfuscates one of the core missions of the Texas
State Bar: to police its members, enforcing basic ethical principles
that are key to safeguarding the public from deceitful attorneys. Since 2011, the bar has sought sanctions — which range from public
reprimand all the way up to disbarment — against more than 2,000
attorneys. Since 2013, it has had roughly 10 cases against prosecutors
that ended in sanctions — including two notable examples. In 2015, former District Attorney Charles Sebesta was
disbarred
for withholding evidence from attorneys working to defend a man named
Anthony Graves, who spent 18 years in prison, 12 of them on death row,
before finally being exonerated. (Graves was friends with Willingham
during the years that both of them were on the row.) And in 2013, a
former DA and elected judge, Ken Anderson, was forced to give up his law
license after he agreed to plead guilty to
prosecutorial misconduct
for his role in the wrongful conviction of Michael Morton. (Anderson
was also sentenced to 10 days in jail.) Morton spent 25 years in prison
for the murder of his wife before DNA evidence linked her killing to
another man. Anderson, like Sebesta, also hid exculpatory evidence from
Morton’s attorneys — the action Jackson now stands accused of in the
Willingham case. That Jackson’s trial is happening in public, his fate in the hands of
a common jury, is something of an anomaly. Lawyers charged with ethical
infractions are given a choice of how they want to proceed. They can
have their case heard in District Court, as Jackson has opted, or
considered in private by a panel made up largely of other attorneys.
Since 2013, just three prosecutors have chosen the public option. There is clearly a calculus involved in the decision. “Getting in
front of a panel is quicker, but if you feel like you’re not going to do
well there, you take it to trial court,” Houston criminal defense
attorney John Floyd
told
the Corsicana Daily Sun. It would seem Jackson chose wisely; Byrne’s
attempts to retry the Willingham case are likely an easier lift in front
of a jury than before a panel of lawyers."
The entire story can be found at:
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/02/texas-prosecutor-in-junk-science-execution-case-stands-trial-for-misconduct/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the
Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my
previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put
considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith
and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic
pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses
on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please
send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest
to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy;
Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
