from Dudley Sharp
Regarding the jurisdiction, by time, of the Texas Forensic Science Commission in the Willingham case:
It seems clear that the TFSC has no jurisdiction in this case. But, that is why we have AG opinions.
The question in not why the TFSC has submitted questions to the Texas AG for his opinion, now, but why and how the TFSC could have spent all of the time, money and other resources on the Willingham case, without being responsible enough to get an opinion from the AG, prior to all of those expenditures.
Were John Bradley and R. Lowell Thompson, Navarro County District Attorney, the only ones who took the time to read the law? Of course not. Has the TFSC been breaking the law this entire time?
Review:
CAPS/BOLD/UNDERLINE/QUOTE For my emphasis
“WILLINGHAM WAS EXECUTED IN 2004”
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 38. EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Art. 38.35. FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE; ADMISSIBILITY.
SECTION 21. Article 38.35, Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by this Act, (1)
“APPLIES ONLY TO THE ADMISSABILITY OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEDING THAT COMMENCES ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT.” ( NOTE: WHICH IS 9/01/05)
The admissibility of physical evidence in a criminal proceeding that commenced before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the
proceeding commenced, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
proceeding commenced, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 22. (a) “THE CHANGE IN THE LAW MADE BY THIS ACT APPLIES TO:
(1) EVIDENCE TESTED OR OFFERED INTO EVIENCE ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS OF THIS ACT (9/01/05); AND
(2) AN INDIVIDUAL WHO, ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT (9/01/05):
(A) IS CONFINED IN A PENAL INSTITUTION OPERATED BY OR UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE TEXAS DEPATEMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 411.148(a)(1)(B), GOVERNMENT CODE, AS AMENDED BY THIS ACT;”
(1) EVIDENCE TESTED OR OFFERED INTO EVIENCE ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS OF THIS ACT (9/01/05); AND
(2) AN INDIVIDUAL WHO, ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT (9/01/05):
(A) IS CONFINED IN A PENAL INSTITUTION OPERATED BY OR UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE TEXAS DEPATEMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 411.148(a)(1)(B), GOVERNMENT CODE, AS AMENDED BY THIS ACT;”
SNIP applies to TYC and DNA
SECTION 23. “THIS ACT TAKES EFFECT September 1, 2005.”
If the law doesn’t mean what it says, then why does it say it? Just a thought..
The law can always be changed. The question should be asked. “As the law seems clear, why wasn’t it followed?” or “Why wasn’t an AG opinion requested before all of the resources were expended?”
(1) links
I was very pleased to find this site. I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoyed every little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out the new stuff you post.
I’ve been looking everywhere for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing.Thx
I’m not an opponent of the death penalty, and I’m not sure that Willingham was innocent, but this website does a serious disservice to its cause, so much so that I suspect it might be a hoax set up by liberal anti-death penalty nuts.
What does this have to do with the truth of the matter? Whether or not they have jurisdiction, the critical issues are the accuracy of the trial evidence that supposedly demonstrated that the best scientific expert analysis shows clear signs of arson, whether or not the investigators made use of science available to them at the time, and whether Texas should do anything to improve its investigative practice. So, who cares about who has jurisdiction? If they don’t have jurisdiction, does that make these questions any less important, or the evidence any less unreliable?
This website seems to post anything that confirms its point of view without vetting it. Even the prosecutor, for example, said that the claims of Willingham’s ex-wife are unreliable.
Everyone should care about our leaders not breaking the law.
It is and was impossible not to investigate everything within the Willingham case. as everything was or now is well known.
You act as if you care about the law and then you say why care about the law. See the problem?
It was clear, from the beginning, that the commission was, knowingly, breaking the law.
Why would they do that? Important questions which should be answered – but were not.
All the Willingham questions were going to be answered, with or without the commission.