An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Texas, the Eyes of Justice Are Upon You (Guest Voice)

Texas, the Eyes of Justice Are Upon You

by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

On October 13, we lost a resolute champion of the law, a man who left his impact on the lives of untold numbers of Americans.

His very name made his life’s work almost inevitable, a matter of destiny. William Wayne Justice was a Federal judge for the Eastern District of Texas. That’s right, he was “Justice Justice.” And he spent a distinguished legal career making sure that everyone – no matter their color or income or class – got a fair shake. As a former Texas lieutenant governor put it last week, “Judge Justice dragged Texas into the 20th century, God bless him.”

Dragged it kicking and screaming, for it was Justice who ordered Texas to integrate its public schools in 1971 – 17 years after the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision made separate schools for blacks and whites unconstitutional. Texas resisted doing the right thing for as long as it could. Many of its segregated schools for African-American children were so poor they still had outhouses instead of indoor plumbing.

This small town lawyer appointed to the federal bench by President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered Texas to open its public housing to everyone, regardless of their skin color. He looked at the state’s “truly shocking conditions” in its juvenile detention system and said, repair it. He struck down state law that permitted public schools to charge as much as a thousand dollars tuition for the children of illegal immigrants.

And Justice demanded a top-to-bottom overhaul of Texas prisons, some of the most brutal and corrupt in the nation. He even held the state in contempt of court when he thought it was dragging its feet cleaning up a system where thousands of inmates slept on the dirty bare floors of their cellblocks and often went without medical care. The late, great Molly Ivins said, “He brought the United States Constitution to Texas.”

Some say that justice stings. William Wayne Justice certainly did – and his detractors stung back with death threats and hate mail. Carpenters refused to repair his house, beauty parlors denied service to his wife. There were cross burnings and constant calls for his impeachment.

After he desegregated the schools he was offered armed guards for protection. He turned them down and instead took lessons in self-defense.

You need to understand that while so many Texans have fought and are fighting the good fight in the Judge Justice tradition, others believe in the law only when it sides with them. They long for the good old days of Judge Roy Bean, the saloonkeeper whose barroom court was known in the frontier days as “the law west of the Pecos.” His judicial philosophy was simple: “Hang ‘em first, try ‘em later.”

The present governor of Texas seems to be channeling Judge Bean. During his nine years in office, Rick Perry – “Governor Goodhair” as Ivins called him – has presided over more than 200 executions, dwarfing the previous record of 152 set by his predecessor in the Governor’s Mansion, George W. Bush. (The most, it is said, of any United States governor in modern history.)

Lethal injection is practically a religious ritual in Texas. In fact, before their sentencing verdict that will send Khristian Oliver to die in just a couple of weeks – on November 5th, to be exact – jurors in the East Texas town of Nacogdoches consulted the Bible and found what they were looking for in the Book of Numbers, where it reads, “The murderer shall surely be put to death,” and, “The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer.” Although it was noted that referencing holy writ was an inappropriate “external influence,” two appeals courts upheld the jury’s sentence and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Governor Perry will do almost anything to please the vengeful crowd in the Coliseum with their thumbs turned down. Did we mention that next year he’s up for re-election? When it turned out recently that five years ago the state may have wrongfully executed a man for a crime he didn’t commit, Perry pulled some particularly shady moves.

In February 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three young daughters. Governor Perry has willfully ignored evidence from top arson investigators that the blaze was not homicide but an accident.

Now Perry has fired the chairman and three members of the state’s Forensic Science Commission just as they were about to hear further scientific testimony that might prove Willingham’s innocence. This week, Perry told reporters that the controversy is “nothing more than propaganda from the anti-death penalty people across the country.”

They can be short on mercy in Texas. All the more reason to mourn the loss of Justice – William Wayne Justice. Rest in peace, your honor.

Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.

  • tidbits
    "...his detractors stung back with death threats and hate mail. Carpenters refused to repair his house, beauty parlors denied service to his wife. There were cross burnings and constant calls for his impeachment."

    Many in the lay community do not realize how common this kind of reaction is, and worse, for those who pursue justice as opposed to playing the game and going along with popular forms of injustice. Thank God for courageous people like Judge Justice. There are others like him, and they are the angels, in life and in death, of our Constitution, our system of justice and our sense of fairness.
  • EEllis
    "willfully ignored evidence from top arson investigators that the blaze was not homicide but an accident."

    They gota piggyback one issue on another don't they. And then lie about the facts. The facts are that several experts disagree with the findings and don't believe there was proof of arson, which is not to say that it was shown to be an accident, just that they can't say which it was.
  • tidbits
    EEllis -

    The law requires that the government prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there was not proof of arson; if the "evidence" of arson was based on "junk science" as one expert called it, and if that was not presented to the jury and it was not, then there is a reasonable doubt as to Willingham's guilt and he should not have been executed. Defendant's are not required to prove their innocence. I'm not going to spend a lot of time researching this, but it is my recollection that at least one of the experts said it clearly was not arson.

    If the government did not prove guilt through competent evidence, and expert after expert says the evidence was not competent, the case should have been retried, and Willingham should not have been executed.

    I agree with you that there is no apparent connection between Judge Justice and the Willingham case other than some broad stretch about Texas justice.
  • mikkel
    The "experts" purportedly used logic that had been disproven a few years earlier and operated more on cultural superstition than scientific fact. I don't blame the original investigation because it did happen only after the field started to become more scientifically standardized and I could see why they wouldn't have known. However, it is unconscionable that the facts weren't reexamined and that the original experts didn't know about the prior test cases years later.
  • EEllis
    "If there was not proof of arson; if the "evidence" of arson was based on "junk science" as one expert called it, and if that was not presented to the jury and it was not, then there is a reasonable doubt as to Willingham's guilt and he should not have been executed. "

    First, it doesn't affect what I said. There is a difference between saying "I can't tell" and "It did not happen". That was my complaint and it is still valid is it not?
    Second, so anytime the defence has an "expert" witness that must mean they should automatically win? Check into the case and the forensic battle is far from one sided.
    Third, of course you can still find someone guilty. If his other actions and behaviors are enough to convince the jury then so be it.

    Look some of this is coming up after the execution. Hard to see the benefit to a new trial now. The standards are also at play. The case was a slam dunk. It would be hard to argue that proof of arson was necessary in Willinghams trial. That is the deal, showing that it would of made a difference. I don't believe it would have. His daughter, by his testimony, woke him up because of smoke. He then left her in his room while he got "lost" in the smoke. The guy was pushing his car from a carport as his kids cooked. His daughter was dying in his room. He then caused such disruption that the deputies ended up cuffing him to the fire truck. He should burn in hell. Honestly they need to pick a better poster boy. Even innocent, which I don't believe for a second, he would still be a waste of life.
  • tidbits
    EEllis -

    The government's case was murder by arson as I understand it. If it wasn't arson, or if arson was in question, they didn't have much of a case. I've heard your arguments before in prior posts. All I'm saying is if there is questionable evidence in a case, the case should have been retried rather him having been executed. Retried does not mean found not guilty. He could have been retried and found guilty again. There is no predetermined result, but a fair trial includes putting the prosecution's case to the test, and that did not happen here as far as the arson evidence was concerned. This is a fair trial issue, not a guilt or innocence argument. Neither you nor I will ever know all that happened, or whether a guilty or an innocent man was executed. It's a damn shame there is doubt about it and the question has to be raised. And there is doubt, and the question is being raised both in Texas and nationally.

    I'll say what I've said before, and which no one, including you, has ever answered. If there is nothing to hide, why is Perry going to such great lengths to hide it? He has dropped four members of the commission, the commission chair said he was being pressured, before he was canned, to drop the investigation by Perry's office, he has refused to release execution review documents (which even George W. Bush did routinely). That's a lot of trouble to go through, and heat to take, if there's nothing to hide. Even conservative Republicans who favor the death penalty are accusing him of a cover-up. And telling me Perry did nothing "illegal" doesn't answer the question: why such efforts to cover up?

    Until someone answers that question, this case stinks like a carcass in the West Texas sun. It walks like a cover up, it quacks like a cover up, and it's a cover up. Why?
  • EEllis
    " but a fair trial includes putting the prosecution's case to the test, and that did not happen here as far as the arson evidence was concerned. "

    That's just not the legal system. Willingham had the opportunity to challenge and that's it. What new test would they do? Is there something "new" or just new experts? You need something new and opinions don't cut it. Even his lawyer said that he was guilty.

    As for the cover up, it is much more likely that the Gov thinks the Forensic science commission should be worried about standards and qualifications rather than spending $50,000 on investigating the "innocence" of a dead man. I'd be a little pissed myself.
  • tidbits
    EEllis -

    This is probably a waste of time. You are so pro death penalty, you accept any excuse to justify it, but I'll try. Let's assume the testing was available at the time of trial, but his attorney (who violated his professional ethics by calling his client guilty) failed to use the test or hire the expert who could run the test. That would be "ineffective assitance of counsel". Result, new trial...due to ineffective assistance of counsel, Willingham was unable to challenge the government's evidence.

    If the test did not exist, then it is new evidence. Result, new trial. Think DNA. How many have been freed due to DNA evidence that did not exist at the time of their convictions.

    Either way, Willingham was denied the opportunity to effectively challenge the government's evidence...either the result of ineffective of counsel or the result of absence of the testing procedures at the time.

    And that, my friend, IS how the legal system works. If you are so convinced that Willingham was guilty, you (and Perry) should be the first to demand, yes demand, an independent investigation to vindicate your opinion and Perry's execution warrant. By hindering, or obstructing, an independent investigation you allow the opponents to continue the assault on the execution, creating constant doubt. Those who believe Willingham to be guillty should be at the front of the line demanding independent assessment to confirm their position. Why do you fear an independent assessment??? Just asking.

    And you still refuse to answer the question about why Perry is engaged in a cover up. Speculating is not an answer. Why does Perry refuse to release the execution review documents? Is that too expensive? C'mon, answer the question. Why all this effort to cover up? What's he hiding? There is only one reason people engage in a cover up...because they think they have something to hide. Period.

    PS - there are sites other than prodeathpenalty."org", and its ilk from which to acquire information. May I suggest ProCon.org ? It covers both sides of capital punishment.
  • EEllis
    In this case there is no "new" test. There was accelerant found near the front door and that's it. The "new" evidence is just interpretation of visual evidence so not "new" in any legal sense. That is the law, it must be "new" and it isn't. The new evidence must create "a doubt as to the efficacy of the verdict sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict." And in this case, to the judges involved, it didn't.
    Also it would have been ridiculously easy for you to find this out. Arguing from facts is always better.

    "who violated his professional ethics by calling his client guilty"

    Did he? Says who? His client was dead and gone and he said an innocent man had not been put to death. I understand that it is not a violation of the state bar so..........

    "Why do you fear an independent assessment??? Just asking."

    I don't and so far haven't seen one. Look at first I knew nothing and had an open mind. Later after looking into it I feel ok about the result. Do your assessment but why should I care?

    "And you still refuse to answer the question about why Perry is engaged in a cover up"

    Because I don't think it is a cover up. Look it's Texas, Willingham was a scumbag, Perry let the system do it's thing, innocent or not what difference would it make to Perry? Voters won't care.

    "Speculating is not an answer."

    Well that's what you are doing. And what I would be doing if I acted like there was some absolute answer. Be consistent at least.

    Look there is one item that is under attack- the finding of arson by the investigators- and I do think the situation surrounding the fire made them believe it was arson as much or more than the physical evidence. I also believe that in trial having just the fire, without the investigators calling it arson, and the other evidence Willingham would of been convicted just as easily.
  • tidbits
    EEllis said, " Look it's Texas, Willingham was a scumbag...innocent or not" You've made that argument before on another thread. Guess that's the problem. If someone's a scumbag, it's ok to execute him, fair trial or not. You'll be surprised to read this, but I agree completely that Willingham was a scumbag. What I don't agree with is that being a scumbag justifies execution...innocent or not.

    If we executed people for being scumbags, the line to the death chamber would stretch for miles and would never get shorter no matter how many we killed.

    Glad you're so cock sure of Willingham's guilt. Must be a nice position to be in...not having been on the jury, not having heard the evidence, not having been privy to the quality of the defense, not having been part of the prosecution, not having read the contrary reports, not having seen the execution review materials, and all. Wish I had your omnipotent and arrogant self assurance about a case I wasn't part of. But, of course, even if he wasn't guilty, he was a "scumbag" so why care about justice?

    Maybe someday it'll be you or one of yours. Will you care about a fair trial then?

    Here's an interesting exercise for you, given your claim to be open minded. Over the course of this thread I have said the following: 1. "I agree with you that there is no apparent connection between Judge Justice and the Willingham case other than some broad stretch about Texas justice." and 2. "I agree completely that Willingham was a scumbag." Kindly point to something I have said that you have found the open mindedness or humility to agree with. Thank you. You can always tell an ideologue because he/she simply refuses to acknowledge any point made by someone who doesn't happen to agree with them, right? I apologize in advance for the snarkiness, but it is so frustrating to try to have a discussion with an ideologue.







  • EEllis
    "What I don't agree with is that being a scumbag justifies execution...innocent or not"

    I agree but common sense would be not to use one as a poster boy wouldn't it?

    "Glad you're so cock sure of Willingham's guilt. Must be a nice position to be in...not having been on the jury, not having heard the evidence, not having been privy to the quality of the defense, not having been part of the prosecution, not having read the contrary reports, not having seen the execution review materials, and all. Wish I had your omnipotent and arrogant self assurance about a case I wasn't part of."

    The funny thing is, and I honestly laughed about it, is that you seem so "self assured" about it just in the exact opposite way. My feeling is that there isn't enough reason to decide the people who were there and made the decision were wrong. I'll be honest I don't want innocent men put to death and I'm not an advocate for the death penalty, but can easily live with it.

    As to something I agree with, Judge Justice was a courageous man who did much good, defendant's are not required to prove their innocence. Sorry to be "an ideologue" but lets face facts, you didn't really know details about the case and were just repeating "anti" talking points not really wanting to get "into" the case. I understand and sure it sounds bad on the outside. When you look at the details of the case you have to wonder what the big deal is. Simply put some people will say, do, use anything, to prevent or disparage a death penalty.
  • tidbits
    EEllis -

    I attempted to reply several hours ago, via email reply. It apparently did not get through Disqus. My apologies. While six or seven paragraphs long, which I cannot remember or repeat, it essentially acknowledged a change in tone in your last reply, acknowledged my background as an attorney and judge, explained that I focus on fair trial because of my background and experience, pointed out that there are no choir boys to use as poster children in murder cases, and suggested that, with a new understanding you and I might have more interesting, and less argumentative, discussions in the future. I also pointed out that there have been cases where I have said that a fair trial was had, but Willingham's is not one.

    Wish Disqus hadn't lost that reply, but I'm sure we'll have the opportunity again.
  • tidbits
    EEllis -

    Thank you for your reply. It was appreciated in its absence of hositility
    and more reasonable approach. I'd like to address it point by point, but
    first a disclaimer. I do oppose the death penalty. That is the result of
    years of experience in the field and 11 years as a trial court judge. I
    know first hand how poor the representation is for man of those accused of
    capital murder and how rare an occasion a well defended capital murder
    trial is. And, Texas is among the worst when it comes to fair trials.
    Much of the problem has to do with payment for defense and defense experts
    to offset the nearly unlimited availability of state resources for the
    prosecution. My issue is with fair trials, not with seeing that the guilty
    are punished. I am one of the strongest proponents you could ever meet for
    life without the possibility of parole - ever. I have represnted these
    "scumbags" and do not want them on the street. And , fyi, life without
    parole is far less expensive to the taxpayers than execution, but that's
    another issue.

    1. You say that being a scumbag should not be a basis for execution.
    Thank you. That is not the position you have taken previously, and this
    one is far more reasonable. Second part of that sentence, that you
    wouldn't want a scumbag for a poster boy. Yeah, true. But, there aren't a
    lot of people sentenced to death who aren't scumbags. That's the truth.
    One of the issues in a capital case is the "future dangerousness" of the
    defendant. Guess who qualifies? Scumbags. One of the problems in
    opposing the death penalty is that you are defending the scum of society on
    the moral ground of not taking an additional human life at the hands of an
    executioner. Another fyi - I oppose, on moral grounds, all taking of human
    life by man...criminal murder, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia,
    and physician assisted suicide. Drives my liberal friends nuts.

    2. About not wanting to second guess the people who were there. It's all
    a factor of what they were presented. You even referred to it in an
    earlier comment. They were told there was evidence of an accelerant at the
    front door. That's what the whole forensic dispute is about, that the
    "opinion" of the state's experts about "evidence" of accelerants (scorching
    at the front door), was based on debunked science. They didn't hear the
    other side. That's why it wasn't a fair trial...even if Willingham was a
    scumbag. I am not self assured about it in "the opposite way", i.e. I do
    not profess any self assurance that Willingham was innocent. He may have
    been guilty. I just think an independent investigation is called for
    because of the science used by the prosecution.

    3. Thank you for agreeing about Judge Justice. It really was not germain
    to what we were discussing, but I appreciate that you agree about that
    much.

    4. I will not do "anything" to disparage a death penalty. I will, to be
    sure, argue against it on moral grounds. But, when I criticize a specific
    trial based on fair trial standards or adequate counsel standards, it is
    just that. And it is based on understanding of the law and experience.
    Just so you know, there have been cases where I have contended that I
    opposed imposition of the death penalty, but could not and would not argue
    with the quality of defense or the fairness of the trial. That is not true
    in the Willingham case. Guilty or innocent, he did not receive a fair
    trial.

    Another point, just as one with the experience to speak to it. The fact
    that Willingham was moving a car when police arrived proves nothing.
    People do the strangest things under stress...I had a client who watched to
    see if a corpse would sunburn. It could mean something or it could mean
    nothing. It's circumstantial and prejudicial evidence, that may or may not
    have meaning. Many judges, with decent defense counsel arguing the point,
    might well have excluded this evidence about the car.

    Fair trials matter, EEllis. If the scumbags of the earth don't get fair
    trials, then someday neither will you or I. Once we decide that fair
    trials can be dispensed with for one class of citizens, dispensing with
    them for other classes of citizens is not far behind.

    Glad we got to more civil discussion. Hopefully, our discussions in future
    can be more respectful. I will try to do my part in that regard.

    ----------------------------------------
  • EEllis
    "Texas is among the worst when it comes to fair trials."

    I'm familiar with the system here so I can't say where we rank but it is a problem in some places because it depends on the judges to see that people get decent representation. In some cases that means they get real good lawyers, here in houston, but out in the boonies they get who they can find. I know a guy who does a fair amount of capital cases here in town. He is in private practice and only does capital cases as an appointed attorney. He basically gets an unlimited budget. He bills the court and they pay. As long as the time is legitimate he will get paid for it. Experts and such are as the court decides but a denial means a point for appeal so if it's a reasonable they pay. Out in the boonies it is different but then the prosecutors are to. They don't have the experience, quality, and bankroll of the Harris County DA. I think in large part it balances out with some glaring exceptions. I also think it's a system that is way to easy to corrupt. But I really here little about fixing the system and I wonder if thats not because they, opponents of the death penalty, would then have one less tool to use against it.

    2 There was accelerant at the front door, no dispute. Since they had a BBQ on the porch where charcoal lighter was water would of carried traces in so forensically there is no telling how that happened to have occurred. And the problem is that you get so many appeals. He used them up. You want to challenge then do it right because you get one bite. He had experts dispute the evidence at trial. They were just not as compelling as the ones brought out since he is dead. You also need to consider that the only ones still working on thins case are the ones trying to disprove it. Its like the defence worked an extra 10 years on a case while the prosecution stopped. It would be sad if they couldn't give the appearance of a question wouldn't it?

    4 I wasn't specifically talking about you but you know the people I mean and that many things used are misleading, incorrect, lies, and totally without merit and they don't care because it fits their agenda. And I also object to saying he didn't receive a fair trail. At the time the arson investigation was straight out of the textbook. The textbook may have been wrong but the connotation that he was treated unfair is wrong. He received all his appeals and was unable to show cause for overturning his verdict. Now 10years later science may have progressed enough that the arson work in his case would no longer meet the requirements for valid evidence. That does not mean that it was "unfair" to use it as evidence then.


    "Once we decide that fair trials can be dispensed with for one class of citizens, dispensing with
    them for other classes of citizens is not far behind."

    I think he got a fair trail. A fair trial means that the system went thru it's process and a decision was rendered honestly. You can have a fair trial and not of done the crime. That you would exclude evidence ........ well if you leave it to the judge then you better have a better reason then "some would do it different" if you want to over rule them don't you think? You don't want to research but you feel comfortable condemning the trail without really looking into it. Have you looked at the appeals on the merits of each? By your experience you would be much more likely than I to find a glaring mistake made by the courts. There must be a point where you stop retrying the things. If you think the current system in texas could be better run then advocate your heart out for it and I would support it. But that really isn't what people want done first is it?











  • tidbits
    Hi EEllis -

    Thank you for the thought provoking reply. I had thought we were done with
    this for a while but don't mind the continuing discussion.

    It is clear that you and I have a different opinion of what constitutes a
    fair trial. For example I believe that if a scientific method used at
    trial turns out not to be scientifically valid years later, then a fair
    trial was not had. I think you disagree based on what you wrote.

    You have obviously spent a great deal of time and energy looking into this
    case. Do you have a personal involvement? You need not answer if you do
    have personal involvement, and I will admit to you honestly that there are
    things I am not at liberty to disclose.

    Your description of the Texas justice system is not uncommon with big metro
    areas providing better defense than smaller counties, though Texas does
    have a reputation for quick & dirty murder trials with an extraordinarily
    high rate of death verdicts...though not as bad as Alabama & a couple of
    other states.

    It would be interesting to talk to your friend to see if Texas complies
    with ABA standards for capital defenders in terms of qualifications,
    training and case load maximums. Sounds like, from what you describe, that
    Houston may though not sure, other areas probably not.

    My experience is that evidence is viewed through the prism of the
    individual viewing it. We, you and I, have very different prisms. My
    experience also is that what a lawyer sees in terms of legal process often
    differs from what a lay person sees in terms of process. Even among
    lawyers, capital work is quite unique and even other lawyers don't fully
    understand it and wonder why anyone would do it. Ask your friend if he
    gets that reaction from other attorneys? Bet he does.

    With one point I will take issue. When you say that DA's in less populated
    counties lack the resources of the big city, that needs to be qualified.
    Even those DA's have access to all the resources of the state, like the
    state crime lab, and usually have access to special assist units from the
    state Attorney General's Criminal Prosecution Division, some of the best
    and most experienced prosecutors and investigators in any state. I don't
    know whether the AG's Assist Division applies in Texas, but you can ask
    your friend. Small town defense lawyers who take an occassional captial
    case have no such experience or access to resources. Many of them don't
    even know what to ask for from the judge (I've seen it first hand). And
    the people available for their teams, like investigators or mitigation
    people, have nowhere near the experience level of those provided by the
    state to the DA.
  • EEllis
    "Thank you for the thought provoking reply. I had thought we were done with
    this for a while but don't mind the continuing discussion."

    I enjoy a good discussion. To be honest as long as there is still a reasonable exchange I'll keep talking for the most part anyway

    "It is clear that you and I have a different opinion of what constitutes a
    fair trial. For example I believe that if a scientific method used at
    trial turns out not to be scientifically valid years later, then a fair
    trial was not had. I think you disagree based on what you wrote."

    It's semantics but definitions are very important in these types of conversations. Fair in this context means, to me, a valid, legal trial. Unfair would be prosecutable misconduct, lying cops and fake evidence. That is not what this is about. Lets face it the word "fair" gets used alot but what does it mean and is there a point. We are not guaranteed a "fair" trial are we?


    "It would be interesting to talk to your friend to see if Texas complies
    with ABA standards for capital defenders in terms of qualifications,
    training and case load maximums. Sounds like, from what you describe, that
    Houston may though not sure, other areas probably not. "

    I doubt it, they couldn't, you really don't realize how spread out Texas is till you've been here. In many jurisdictions they would have to go get a lawyer from outside the area to meet the qualifications and they don't do that.

    "Even among
    lawyers, capital work is quite unique and even other lawyers don't fully
    understand it and wonder why anyone would do it. Ask your friend if he
    gets that reaction from other attorneys? Bet he does."

    In Houston the DA's are good, very good. They take a lot death penalty cases but you would be shocked by how many they pass up. Here in Houston when they go for the Death Penalty they almost always get it and they always convict. So those that do capital work are not really trying to get anyone off, just to keep them from dying, and these are some of the best defense attorneys around.

    "When you say that DA's in less populated
    counties lack the resources of the big city, that needs to be qualified.
    Even those DA's have access to all the resources of the state, like the
    state crime lab, and usually have access to special assist units from the
    state Attorney General's Criminal Prosecution Division, some of the best
    and most experienced prosecutors and investigators in any state. I don't
    know whether the AG's Assist Division applies in Texas, but you can ask
    your friend. Small town defense lawyers who take an occasional capital
    case have no such experience or access to resources. "

    There is a criminal prosecutions division and they will take over a case but then it is theirs not the locals so that doesn't happen often unless the DPS\Texas Rangers investigated in the first place. The crime labs are supposed to provide info, unbiased info, and isn't supposed to be on either side. True small town lawyers just don't do many capital cases, but then neither do small time DA's or even judges. If the Judge is fair then he, and it's he who controls the appointments, will make sure the trail is fair. Many Judges do just that, drafting lawyers who prefer not to work but have experience, paying more for better representation. In Willinghams case the Judge assigned 2 lawyers to the case. The system can be screwed up but in this case I think it was "fair".
  • EEllis
    "Do you have a personal involvement?"

    Not in this case.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC