Bradley Spars With Lawmakers

By the time Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley appeared as a witness before a special-called meeting of the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee, an editorial penned by the prosecutor had already run in several newspapers around the state. In it, Bradley assured readers that the Texas Forensic Science Commission's work on the Cameron Todd Willingham case, "involving a study of the application of the forensic science of arson, will be completed." But that work will have to wait – seemingly indefinitely – until some housekeeping is done. Accord­ing to Bradley's vision of the future of the commission, not much can or will happen until new rules and policies are written, standards for the group's investigation of complaints are in place (he'll ask for help from Texas Rangers for this part), a system of confidentiality is created (with help from the Texas Attorney General's Office), and additional funding resources are located (presumably from the Legislature).

In other words, it could be a long, long wait for the resolution of the Willingham case.

While there is certainly merit to the suggestion that the commission – created by legislation in 2005 but not actually funded until 2007 – develop a common playbook, the notion that halting work on three pending investigations to focus on administrative work that, as Bradley wrote, "may need several years to complete" isn't exactly encouraging. Still, Bradley told lawmakers that these steps would be necessary to ensure the commission maintains its integrity and is not used as a pawn by people with specific agendas. The process should not be so open as "to be hijacked by others ... for their own personal missions," he said. And without rules and procedures, he continued, the commission is "in very dangerous territory of that happening."

Bradley appeared before lawmakers Nov. 10 to outline his plans for the commission's near future and explain how a sudden change in leadership might affect its ongoing legislative charge to investigate complaints related to the scientific integrity of forensics in the criminal justice system. Bradley was appointed chair of the commission in late Septem­ber, just two days before the panel was slated to hold a hearing to question fire science expert Craig Beyler about his findings in the Wil­ling­ham case – specifically, that investigators with the Corsicana Fire Department and the State Fire Marshal's Office relied on bad science, unproven theories, and personal bias in concluding that the 1991 house fire that killed Willingham's three children was the result of arson and not a tragic accident. Willingham was convicted of capital murder based almost entirely on the conclusion that the fire was arson and was executed in February 2004.

Immediately following his appointment, Bradley canceled and has indefinitely postponed the commission's public vetting of the Beyler report.

While that report did not conclude that the fire was an accident or that Willingham was an innocent executed by the state, the implications of his review (and the conclusions of other fire-science experts who have previously weighed in on the case) are clear: If the scientific investigation was shoddy, it is quite possible there was no arson; if there was no arson, there was no crime; if there was no crime, there should have been no execution.

At last week's hearing, Bradley's responses to questions from lawmakers were decidedly confrontational. When Sen. Rodney Ellis asked him if he was concerned by the public perception that postponing the Willingham case was a delay tactic that could undermine confidence in the criminal justice system, Bradley replied that his concern is that the commission's work is not held hostage by outside influences. Then he returned fire, telling Ellis that some people might wonder about the senator's own interest in the case, given his position as chair of the board of directors for the New York-based Innocence Project, which initially brought the arson-science complaint to the commission. "So I have to ask," Bradley said, "are you here today on behalf of that nonprofit group and your complainant, or ... as a senator trying to promote an evenhanded commission?" Later, Rep. Tommy Merritt, who was sitting in on the hearing, asked Bradley if he would also assume Merritt had an agenda if he were to "ask tough questions" about the new chairman's approach. "I don't even know your name," Bradley replied, obviously unaware that he was speaking to the Republican chair of the House Public Safety Committee.

On Nov. 11, the day after the hearing, Austin defense attorney Sam Bassett – the former chairman of the commission – penned a one-page press release to respond to Brad­ley's contention that administrative chores were left undone under his leadership and that those chores must be completed before moving forward. "I respectfully disagree," Bassett wrote. "Though the Commission might benefit in the long term from development of written standards, I do not believe that this should result in the paralysis of Commission activity. The Commission doesn't need to evolve into a large, bureaucratic State agency to carry out its mission." (Indeed, Bassett wrote, the commission had worked with a representative from the state Attorney General's Office who advised on "matters of law and process relating to the Commission's work.") "What may have been lost in the discussion of 'rules and procedures'" during the hearing "is that the statute creating the Commission requires investigation of complaints to occur 'in a timely manner,'" Bassett continued. "The idea that the Commission will likely conclude these investigations in 2011 or beyond" – assuming the timeline offered in Bradley's editorial – "is far from timely. Texas deserves better."

Clearly, the question of how fire science is applied in Texas isn't confined to answering questions about the Willingham case, Ellis noted during the hearing. As of July, there were 742 arson offenders in Texas prisons, he said, and whether they're there because of faulty science is important to know.

But when a reporter from The Dallas Morn­ing News asked if Bradley had any response to Bassett's press release – and, specifically, any response to Bassett's contention that a raft of rules and policies aren't needed – Bradley shot back directly at Bassett. "To make a clear point, Bassett utterly failed to adopt even a definition of negligence or misconduct to be applied to investigations of forensic science," he wrote. "In the scientific world, that amounts to incompetence."

Whether Bradley's confrontational attitude will go over well with the other eight members of the commission, seven of whom are scientists, remains to be seen. In the aftermath of Bradley's performance before the Criminal Justice Committee, there's been a growing sentiment at the Capitol that the best way to ensure that science – not politics – drives the commission is to make sure one of the scientists on the panel is tapped to lead the group. Indeed, Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, who chairs the committee, reminded Bradley that the Legislature will return in less than 18 months. What's more, he added, Bradley's appointment still needs to be confirmed by the Senate, and if new rules need to be written for the commission, lawmakers can do the job. "We can write our own set of rules, if we need to."