Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair
Prosecutors Fail to Disclose Favorable Evidence that Contradicted Expert’s Testimony
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
We have repeatedly made clear our disdain for prosecutorial misconduct (here). And here we go again. More dirty, underhanded prosecutorial tactics. Just two days after our July 16 post concerning the Casey Anthony “not guilty” verdict, The New York Times carried a report about these tactics being employed by Orlando prosecutors bent on convicting Anthony for capital murder of her two-year old daughter. In our July 16 post we made the following observation about manner of how little Caylee was murdered that prosecutors presented to the jury:
“The problem is that theories are nothing more than opinions until they are supported by facts. The Casey Anthony jurors had the remarkable courage to face an inevitable hostile public reaction by refusing to accept the prosecutors’ theory [of how Caylee was killed] without a single piece of direct factual evidence to back it up. For example, prosecutors wanted the jurors to accept that because they offered evidence that Anthony had conducted Internet searches for chloroform, she must have used it in the commission of the murder. Yet prosecutors did not produce any chloroform, any evidence that Anthony purchased chloroform and, worse yet, that Caylee was even killed with chloroform.”
The Times report, titled “Software Designer Reports Error in Anthony Trial” and written by Lizette Alvarez, now informs us that the prosecutors’ claim that Anthony conducted 84 Internet searches for information about chloroform was false, or misleading at best. A software designer named John Bradley told the Times the prosecution’s case about the chloroform was based on “inaccurate data.” The Times described the “error” this way:
“According to Mr. Bradley, chief software developer of CacheBack, used by the police to verify the computer searches, the term ‘chloroform’ was searched once through Google. The Google search then led to a Web site, sci-spot.com that was visited only one time. Mr. Bradley added. The web site offered information on the use of chloroform in the 1880s.
(more…)
Governor’s Sacking of Commission’s Head Stalls Review of Junk Science Convictions
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
The Texas Legislature created the Forensic Science Commission (“FSC”) in 2005 to investigate what the Texas Monthly called “scientific negligence and misconduct.” The legislature acted following the February 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham and the October 2004 decision by Pecos County District Attorney Ori White to free Ernest Willis from capital murder charges. Willingham and Willis had both been convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for murders they allegedly committed by setting fires to dwellings in which five people were killed—two women in Willis’ case and Willingham’s three young daughters. The forensic arson evidence used to convict both men was virtually identical. In fact, as Michael Hall wrote recently in Texas Monthly, these two condemned men had a lot in common:
“They were both country boys—Willis from New Mexico, Willingham from Oklahoma—who liked hunting, drinking, and carousing. Both were unemployed and living in small Texas towns when they were accused of setting fires that killed people (in Willingham’ case, his three small daughters in 1991). Both were convicted of capital murder on the basis of testimony of investigators who believed they had found evidence of arson. Both were sent to death row. Eventually both were vindicated by modern science, which determined that there was absolutely no evidence of arson in either case. The fires were almost certainly accidents.”
And both men were targeted as suspects by investigators because of their behavior immediately after the fires. According to neighbors who witnessed the Willingham fire, the father “crouched down” in his front yard and refused to make any effort to recuse his children despite pleas by the neighbors that he do so. Similarly, witnesses said Willis, who was high on pain killers and beer, looked distant as he impassively smoked cigarettes while watching the fire burn that killed the two women. This apparent lack of “proper” emotion and empathy for the people being burned alive was sufficient reason for investigators to manipulate the forensic evidence to change the fires from accidents into intentional acts of murder.
By 2003, time was running out for Willingham. In November of that year the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his final appeal. Desperate, the condemned man’s brother reached out to a highly respected Austin forensic arson expert named Gerald Hurst after reading an article about the Cambridge-educated chemist. The brother begged Hurst to examine the forensic evidence used to convict Willingham. The fire scientist agreed, and was astonished to discover the evidence used to convict Willingham almost certainly proved the fire had been an accident and not intentional arson/murder. Willingham’s court-appointed attorney notified Gov. Rick Perry about the Hurst findings three days before his client’s scheduled February 14 execution. He requested that the governor stay the execution of his client until the Hurst findings of innocence could be adequately developed. Gov. Perry did not respond to the stay request, so just 88 minutes before Willingham was actually executed the attorney faxed a copy of the Hurst report to the governor’s office. To this day it is not certain whether Gov. Perry even reviewed the Hurst report before allowing the execution to proceed as scheduled. (more…)
Failure to Properly Prepare for Trial, Basis for Federal Habeas Relief
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
In 2001 the two female justices on the U.S. Supreme Court spoke out about the quality of legal representation afforded to criminal defendants facing the death penalty in this nation.
“After 20 years on (the) high court,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “I have to acknowledge that serious questions are being raised about whether the death penalty is being fairly administered in this country. Perhaps it’s time to look at minimum standards for appointed counsel in death cases and adequate compensation for appointed counsel when they are used.”
In April of that year Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was more direct in an Associated Press account: “People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty … I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-executions stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial.”
Before the 2001 public criticisms offered by Justices O’Connor and Ginsburg, three major newspapers had conducted investigations that offered compelling evidence about the deplorable legal representation provided in capital cases. The Chicago Tribune reported on November 15, 1999
that 12% of those condemned to death from 1976 to 1999 were represented by “an attorney who had been, or was later, disbarred or suspended—disciplinary sanctions reserved for conduct so incompetent, unethical or even criminal that the state believes an attorney’s license should be taken away.” The newspaper said that an additional 9.5% had “received a new trial or sentencing because their attorney’s competence rendered the verdict or sentence unfair, court records show.” (Ken Armstrong and Steve Mills, “Inept Defenses Cloud Verdict”). (more…)
Subscribe
