Friday started badly for John Bradley, the Williamson County district attorney selected last fall by Gov. Rick Perry to ride herd over the troublesome scientists on the Texas Forensic Science Commission.See related Grits coverage of the meeting:His first official act of the morning was to violate the state's open meetings law.
Then his day got worse. ...
Bradley unilaterally wrote the agenda for Friday's meeting to focus on new policies and procedures, omitting the Willingham report. He also unilaterally chose Harlingen (which is as close to Mexico City as to Fort Worth, where three of the nine uncompensated and busy commission members live), making wrong my snide prediction that he would hold the meeting in Presidio to discourage reporters.
The session took place in a modest meeting room at a Marriott Courtyard Hotel. A few area reporters were seated around the walls, as well as a handful of protesters carrying signs. A camera crew from the national Innocence Project streamed the meeting live on the group's Web site.
But Bradley evicted an Austin-based documentary crew before the meeting started. One of its members called the attorney general's office in Austin, which sent a message to Barbara Dean, the assistant district attorney who has attended all of the commission's meetings, providing legal guidance since its inception.
An hour and a half into the meeting, Dean, seated behind Bradley, tapped him on the shoulder and quietly spoke into his ear. He announced a 10-minute break, and when the meeting resumed the film crew was in the room.
When I asked Bradley about the matter, he curtly told me to talk to the film crew. I said I had and he replied with annoyance: “Then you know.”
His defensiveness was understandable. Enforcement of the Open Meetings Act is the responsibility of local district attorneys such as himself.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Bradley violated Open Meetings Act at forensic hearing
A Houston Chronicle column by Rick Casey ("The revolt of the scientists," Jan. 31) details behind the scenes wrangling at the Forensic Science Commission meeting on Friday, in which Chairman John Bradley first ejected, then reluctantly allowed in, a documentary camera crew tracking the Willingham case. Here's a tasty excerpt:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
19 comments:
Surprised I am not. Wonder where Bradley gets his legal advice.
Choke. Gasp. Snark!
One supposes that's why he thinks the commission needs a full-time General Counsel as its first employee: To save him from himself.
Thank goodness he's above the law or else he could run into problems at some point.
Not only is John Bradley a hack for Gov. Perry, he's also a jerk!
Kay Bailey, where are you?
I have an idea. Since the Texas legislature (and those supposed law and order types like Bradley) are so fond of making every little thing a felony, why don't we make a violation of the open meetings act by a district attorney (who should know better) a felony punishable by at least 10 years in prison? Seems fair to me. After all it's a worse crime than molestig oysters.
Sorry, typo - meant "molesting oysters".
Here's another idea. Let's implement district attorney/board chairman responsibility fees (like driver responsibility fees). When someone holds both of these positions and they violate the law they have to pay these "responsibility fees" in order to keep their bar license. Of course we would excuse indigent DA/board chairman from paying the fees.
Bradley has nothing but contempt for open government. This episode reminds me of the Threet case, in which Bradley refused to provide medical records related to the cause of death of the alleged murder victim, forcing Dick DeGuerin to submit a Public Information request to the Attorney General. When the OAG sided with DeGuerin, Bradley sued in district court.
What a sleazebag.
Wasn't the meeting broadcast by those New York anti-death penalty people all over the world wide web? I watched it online. I'm thinking that's about as "transparent" as you can get, Grits!
"Wasn't the meeting broadcast by those New York anti-death penalty people all over the world wide web?"
Spin, Spin. The INNOCENCE project isn't about abolishing the death penalty. It's about freeing people who are innocent and were wrongfully convicted. Spinning the Willingham case as being about the death penalty is simply a way to distract from the real issue, wrongful convictions.
Let's see...should we assume then that 5:01 is pro-wrongful convictions and supports keeping innocent people in prison and/or executing innocent people?
I recall in the Senate committee hearing a while back where Bradley testified he said that the Willingham case had been hijacked by anti-death penalty groups. If that's true why does it seem to always be those on his side who want to turn the it into a debate about the death penalty?
I'll answer my own question. When you know you are going to lose on the real issue you try to change the debate and make it about something else. I don't know Bradley but I assume he is a smart guy. I also assume he has looked at all of the information on the Willingham case. Since he probably is a smart guy he has probably concluded that, when considering all the available information, it is very likely that Willingham was innocent. He knows he can't win on this issue so he and those on his side are trying to make this a debate about the death penalty by accusing those on the other side of doing just that.
There is a huge logical flaw in saying this is about the death penalty. That flaw is the fact that it is possible to be okay with the death penalty but against executing someone who is innocent. It appears that some are so concerned with protecting the system that they believe the execution of an innocent person is acceptable
Anon. 5:22, the reason the Innocence Project is wanting the FSC to investigate the Willingham case has everything to do with the abolition of the death penalty. Anyone who believes otherwise is either stupid or incredibly naïve. It is undisputed that arson science standards have improved extensively in the nearly 2 decades since Willingham committed capital murder. What purpose is served by "investigating" obsolete standards? Even Grits admits that the FSC's focus on Willingham is a distraction. Instead, the abolitionists want this government finding to the effect that an "innocent" was executed in Texas. It's their "holy grail!" Look how conveniently they brush aside the mountains of other evidence Willingham is guilty! He even admitted his guilt to the mother of his child victims but Grits and others have attempted to publically discredit her and make her appear to be a liar. Thay also want to use such a "finding" to attack Rick Perry--a pro-death penalty governor. Try as the abolitionists might, there is ZERO creible evidence that an innocent person has been executed in Texas. In this regard, Bradley is actually doing a good thing by placing Willingham on the back burner so a process can be developed that will permit legitimate study and improvement in the field of evidentiary forensic science.
If it is so clear that Willingham was guilty it seems to me that the best thing to do would be to have a hearing, show everyone that he was guilyt, and that would put an end to the matter.
If Bradley is convinced of Willingham's guilt, why is he afraid to have hearing?
The reason they are delaying until after the election is that while Perry believes Willingham is guilty, without the now-discredited forensic evidence, he can not say for sure that Texas has not executed an innocent person. Without the faulty forensic evidence, there would probably not have even been any charges filed.
5:01, Bradley thought he could pick and choose which camera crews got to attend. The law doesn't allow him that privilege.
7:13, some arson investigators still use the old methodologies and have not upgraded to science-based investigative techniques. That's why it's still important, that and the fact that thousands of people were convicted and many may still be in prison based on the folklore that previously passed as arson expertise.
Finally, whether you think this is "about the death penalty" IMO tends to say more about you than it does the FSC investigation. If you care about innocent people sitting in prison, it's about junk science. If your interest is maximizing use of the death penalty, it becomes about that. But the death penalty part of the debate is at best tangential to the questions the FSC is investigating, which don't actually relate to capital punishment at all. That's something being projected onto the debate from the outside, not the actual topic raised by the FSC.
Well it's obvious, Grits, that lots of people are "projecting" lots of things onto the FSC in the hope that it might ultimately benefit whatever agenda they happen to be pushing. In that regard, it seems to me that that is all the more reason that the FSC should proceed very cautiously in its investigations and deliberations. Whatever their ultimate findings and conclusions might be with regard to any particular type of forensic evidence; it is clear that their work could have broad ranging consequences. Your own example regarding the reexamination of previously closed arson cases is the very reason that it makes good sense to make sure their work is done slowly, deliberately and with due regard to the potential impact of their decision--good or bad. As best I can tell, there were no real standards governing what the FSC investigated, when they investigated, how they investigated, how they made decisions, and what the standard was for making a decision or suggesting a change to existing forensic sciences which have been approved for use in court. Regardless of the fact that the FSC is dealing with "scientific" processes and methodologies, there will always be a necessary "interface" between their work and the the judicial system.
Other than the hysteria by the Willingham supporters and their obvious zeal to embarrass Gov. Perry before the primary, I can see no real justification for allowing the FSC to proceed in the standardless and procedure-less manner that it was being conducted in before Bradley's appointment. It certainly won't hurt anything (and it won't bring Willingham back to life) for the FSC to take their time and makes sure their work is done right. JMO..
Egomaniac with an inferiority complex! He is so used to getting his way in the Gestapo county he runs that he can't take it when somebody tells him "No"
Yes, Williamson County is a Gestapo county.
Post a Comment