A long-awaited review of old Texas arson cases — an unprecedented search for wrongful convictions based on bad fire investigation science — is picking up speed and will probably produce the first results in January, participants said [last] Friday.
One suspect case has been identified and about 26 others are being scrutinized for evidence that investigators relied on now-discredited “myths,” instead of science, to determine that the fires were intentionally set, said Nick Vilbas with the Innocence Project of Texas, which is leading the review.
“We hope to be done pretty soon,” Vilbas told the Texas Forensic Science Commission during Friday’s meeting in Austin.
A panel of fire experts, assembled by new Texas Fire Marshal Chris Connealy, is scheduled to hear details of the first batch of suspect cases in January. Their findings would help determine how each case should proceed in the criminal justice system, Connealy said.
The Star-Telegram provides more details.
“We’re looking at four or five cases,” said Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas. “Those are going to be looked at hard.”
Blackburn is scheduled to appear before the Texas Forensic Science Commission in Austin to report on a records examination of hundreds of arson convictions. The effort is aimed at finding examples of junk science similar to that used to convict Cameron Todd Willingham of killing his three daughters, which resulted in a controversial review by the commission. Willingham was executed in 2004.
Blackburn says one or more of the new cases may involve inmates from North Texas.
At the request of the state’s top forensic panel, the Texas Innocence Project reviewed 1,025 arson-related crimes in Texas from recent years, and concluded that most don’t involve questionable evidence. A small number, maybe a half dozen, may have used scientific processes now deemed to be faulty, Blackburn said.
Blackburn’s work, commission members have said, is expected to send a clear message to fire investigators on the proper protocols for handling arson-related cases.
This has been a very long time in coming – it was two years ago that the Forensic Science Commission agreed to this review, and I think we know how much went on before we got to that point. It’s not a lot of cases to review, but they all sure matter to the possibly innocent convict who’s been in jail for it for however many years. I’ll be interested to see how the prosecutors of these cases react, given how resistant the Willingham prosecutor (among others) have been to this kind of review. Grits has more.