As you watch this, remember that this is Cameron Todd Willingham's defense attorney. The interview is incredible. It's like watching a root-docter, who's just performed a heart transplant, try to explain why the patient is dead. I deeply suspect that this is all unexceptional. There is no fool-proof anything in this world--least of all a death penalty. The New Yorker piece on Willingham is here.
You see this sort of thing, and you start to believe that in some parts of this country, there really isn't a such thing as conservatism anymore--there's just a white populism, a deep-seated belief that someone like Sarah Palin should have the launch codes, that people like this should have hand in matters of life and death. It's incredible.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I felt embarrassed for that guy.
I felt embarrased for Anderson Cooper. It takes him over 8 minutes to notice that this BUFFOON is calling himself an investigator and some kind of arson expert based on putting effing lighter fluid on a muthasucking carpet. And even when he finally notices he doesn't even challenge this clown. Don't get me wrong, I imagine most anybody seeing this clip would agree that the guy is a jackass. But its Cooper's demeanor and unpreparedness which makes people so frustrated with cable news in general and CNN in particular. Cooper didn't have to act like he had all the answers but dammit when somebody says as much nonesensical crap as that guy does he should be challenged on it. The defense attorney effectively took over the interview and kept challengingt the other guest for proof which he started providing with names etc but NOBODY challenged him for proof that putting some frikkin lighter fluid on a carpet was a suitable alternative to expert findings of people who have actually gone to school to study fires.
I swear that this should lead to scrutiny of the entire Texas legal system if THAT guy was able to defend ANYBODY in court.
Holy moly, that guy really was a buffoon. I almost started to laugh during the interview because (in David Martin's favorite phrase) it was such an absurdity! And then I realized that someone is DEAD because of this buffoonery. You're right that Cooper could've and should've gone after this jerk so much harder. He just seemed kind of bemused and maybe a little amused. Frankly, that whole interview was horrifying and while I expect very little from the Texas justice system, I do expect defense lawyers to at the very least TRY to do their jobs, even if they are incompetent. This guy was not only incompetent but clearly also "defending" his client in bad faith.
Seriously, though, how is this not a case for getting disbarred?
This whole episode makes me wanna holler. Or weep. I think the whole thing about "he was buying drinks at the bar" is emblematic of the general reaction here in Texas. He musta done something, people shrug. The silence is deafening and the fact that the incumbent governor can mishandle the appeal and the subsequent investigation, with barely a peep from his main political opponents-- it just shows how much of a non-issue this is right now. (I know tnc posted a quote from a rival, but until Kay Bailey Hutchison starts swinging, it's not an issue).
Which is really depressing. And then you extrapolate this attitude/approach to non-capital cases and it gets more depressing.
Clearly, this is a guy who as a law enforcement officer figured out a way to game the system for his particular brand of justice. He does a disservice to the legal profession. I don't feel embarrassed for him I feel like his career needs to be further investigated. Judging by his manner I would not be surprised if he did the bare minimum to defend the guy. When you go to defend someone, even if you think they are guilty, you treat it like a game of sorts. You don't just test the prosecution's evidence, you obliterate it if you can. You divorce your feelings about the person's guilt and you and do everything ethically and legally to get the defendant off. This dude worked for the other side. The dude could have been guilty but he left no possibility that the dude was innocent. This is why the system does not work.
Exactly. Thanks for articulating it so clearly.
And then there's the CraigsList kind of lawyer, the kind that's out of work and just might take on a crazy client with a haunted house for a mere $18 an hour:
http://www.ethicsoup.com/2009/10/halloween-lawyers-and-a-haunted-house.html
If you only listen to the guy, you hear Randy Quaid from the Vacation movies. And then you realize that this isn't some crappy Chevy Chase vehicle, but it's a defense attorney in a capital case and it's fricking terrifying.
"When a client tells you his story you don't just stupidly accept it."
However, when the prosecutor tells you his story . . .
Cringed to the point of not even being able to watch all of that. Just listened to it, while i had a different frame open.
Unbelievable that this is the defense attorney from the case. To say this guy didn't receive a fair trial is obviously a gross understatement.
Can you imagine the other people that man defended? The death penalty is the worst, of course, but how many more people were wrongly convicted by some jerk with a can of lighter fluid and a completely wrongheaded notion of justice?
You see this sort of thing, and you start to believe that in some parts of this country, there really isn't a such thing as conservatism anymore...
Ok, now I know that you've been spending way too much time with Sullivan. Don't believe the hype. White populism is all conservatism ever was in America. You think the south went from unanimously Democratic to unanimously Republican in the blink of an eye because they had a change of heart on supply-side economics?
Right. That's exactly what I think.
It's Marx and Tocqueville -- "A conservative country with no conservative ideology."
But that's no reason to dismiss efforts to build a conservative ideology.
When you're driving toward the cliff, the radical says 'swerve,' the conservative says 'brake.' One or the other may be appropriate. Unfortunately, in the current political discourse the argument is between swerving left and swerving right.
He nearly lost me at "checking cows." Good lawyers are those who are in it for the love of the law, IMO. They know, as an example among many, Federal and State criminal and/or civil codes cold and which to apply to a defense or argument and can make their argument. They're the ones who spend unbillable time lost in research. After working with attorneys for nearly 25 years, I've worked with those far closer to Mr. Man above (though none this bad) than Atticus Finch.
He may be indicative of white populism, but it sickens me more that he is clearly a legal dilettante, no matter how many cases he's tried. I mean, really, the Jackass rug and lighter fluid proof of guilt?
I loved his response to the arson expert: "This isn't objective!" Of course not! He was pissed off that a man was sentenced to death due to lousy science. The attorney doesn't care that he was trying to get his client off death row; the scientist insulted his buddies on the police department, so his reports should be discounted. This is angry white populism in a nutshell. "We'll destroy our lives, our people, our communities, before we'll let some liberal coastal elitist tell us what to do." Which inspires more contempt from liberal elitists like myself, naturally.
Both links point to the article...
Looks like someone skipped class the day in law school they teach us about our "duty of loyalty" to our clients. A duty that continues even after our clients die (or are murdered by the state).
Fair enough. But he was clearly present on the day they teach you that any visual similarity between some random piece of carpet that you set on fire and the carpet in you client's burned-down house is clear evidence he murdered his daughters. I must've been sick that day.
Hahaha. Same.
In Texas, Texas messes with you.
Wow, I'm glad we have Einstein here to lead us through the scientific inquiry. Enlightening though the sixth grade science experiment would undoubtedly be, I have to balk at advising the television audience to set their carpets on fire. The reasoning is awesome:
No accidental cause of the fire can be proven, so (whatevs with innocent-till-proven-guilty) Willingham is guilty!
Arson could have caused the evidence found, so (without bothering to ask whether anything else could have produced those same effects) Willingham is guilty!
Also, this is a total breach of legal ethics - his duty to serve his client's interests extends beyond Willingham's death, because clients have interests (e.g. reputational, and in many cases financial) that survive their deaths.
He seems exactly like a guy getting defensive cause he did a shitty job and may now be held to account for it.
That's the thing. For every story like this that makes it to the national news, there are how many heartsick families who just watch these things happen to them, and can find no recourse in any direction?
Is there any state sanctioned torture greater than being an innocent on death row? Try to imagine: everyday that passes you know that the immense power of a potentially corrupt and/or inept government is bringing you closer to your death for a crime you did not commit. L'etat c'est moi.
He should be disbarred.
Jeez Louise, that was one of the most appalling things I've seen. I know Anderson Cooper is getting some flak here from not buttonholing the guy more. But the so-called defense attorney came across as such a moron that making him look worse is akin to kicking a puppy. There'd be no sport to it, and no point.
I'd be mildly surprised if that so-called defense attorney could even tie his shoes.
what kind of case did this lawyer put on?! he seemed to believe the client was guilty from the outset, and refused to investigate diligently. i don't know if Willingham committed the crime or not, but to assert guilt because of an unscientific experiment and him buying shoes, clothes, a dart board after the incident is wholly insane. i'm no lawyer, but can he be sanctioned for an ethical violation?
Not only is his "experiment" not science his argument is a logical fallacy.
It is called affirming the consequent http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html
Any competent attorney would not do that. Similarities in burn patterns are not conclusive. He would do better to test if non-accellerant fires could produce a similar pattern.
"There really isn't a such thing as conservatism anymore--there's just a white populism, a deep-seated belief that someone like Sarah Palin should have the launch codes, that people like this should have hand in matters of life and death."
This is exactly right, and the source of endless frustration to the few of us conservatives left...
This is Martin -- who is a public defender and former state trooper -- in the Grann article:
“Everyone thinks defense lawyers must believe their clients are innocent, but that’s seldom true,” Martin told me. “Most of the time, they’re guilty as sin.” He added of Willingham, “All the evidence showed that he was one hundred per cent guilty. He poured accelerant all over the house and put lighter fluid under the kids’ beds.”
Jesus God. It's not his job to decide if his client is guilty or not-guilty. His job is to give his client a vigorous defense. That this guy is a public defender makes me ill. I've got a family member who is a career public defender and the guy just works his tail off. I watched him fight for three years -- after his client was found guilty of homicide --to get the guy into a forensic psychiatric hospital (as opposed to mere prison) so that the guy would get some sort of treatment.
The stuff with the cows? Does everyone in the state of Texas think they're George W. Bush? I read the Grann article and was appalled. I see this and I'm just speechless.
Yeah, it's posturing, and nothing else. He reminds me in some ways (the blustering and self-certainty rather than humility in the face of a challenge) of my uncles, but any rancher who was just going about his day would NEVER keep his hat on when he came inside. A man steps across the threshold, he takes his hat off. It's ingrained, and it would be unthinkable for him not to.
The Dallas Morning News and Ft Worth Star Telegram both have stories today about this case.
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1709067.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102509dnprowillingham.3f5f9ad.html
The Dallas Morning News article expresses skepticism about Willingham's innocence. It includes all the typical "he was a bad guy" evidence. But it also says that one of the children was asleep in the same bed where Willingham was supposedly sleeping at the time of the fire. I hadn't read that before, and it does seem suspicious. It is an interesting article and raises some new questions.
And speaking of white populism, I read this last night in the David Brion Davis book Inhuman Bondage, about the history of slavery in the Americas:
This strategy is still in effect today.
Oooh... That's a nice quote....
Watching this sends me back to something I said earlier. The real issue here is the death penalty. Whether this attorney is trying to cover his behind for his role in what has now become a nationally reported upon case or simply is convinced by his experience with Willingham and the rest of the trial, he appears entirely certain of his position. He is a true believer.
The tunnel vision appears overwhelming to those of us who look at the same case from the perspective of time and the investigative reportage that presents the evidence differently and in the light of more contemporary fire science forensics. And this lawyer's initial comments seem flimsy in that he seems to be saying that the report, by virtue of its skeptical tone aimed toward the original fire forensic witnesses, should be dismissed out of hand as biased, which had me scratching my head and twitching my nose with the stink of red herring.
Nonetheless, what is haunting about this is that the guy is a true believer. I don't really see this as an instance of white populism or conservatism at all. Perhaps the cowboy hat and Texas accent may be contributing factors to that impression, but I wonder why else you make that association in this TN.
Children were killed, acts that stir the emotions of almost everyone, and this guy believes Willingham did it. More than that, he has a personal investment (his reputation as a professional lawyer) in such belief. This strikes me as a human foible, tunnel vision leading to passionately held conviction an almost universal fly in the human ointment, not simply white nor rustic nor populist nor conservative, and why among other reasons, equally compelling, the death penalty should be abolished.
Whether or not Cameron Todd Willingham is guilty or innocent, it is clear that he didn't get a fair trial.
And David Martin's rhetorical contortions displayed here are likely the product a lot of rationalizing to justify his complicity in this miscarriage of justice. You could probably say the same about Rick Perry's desperate attempts to obfuscate the recent investigation.
In all fairness, I would doing a lot of rationalizing too, if I had blood all over my hands.
"Whether or not Cameron Todd Willingham is guilty or innocent, it is clear that he didn't get a fair trial."
I agree completely. It's important not to go from being indignant that he didn't get a fair trial to claiming his innocence. This will undermine the point. Many people are convinced of his guilt (for various reasons). Trying to convince them of his innocence is near impossible, but convincing them he didn't get a fair trial should (theoretically) be much easier in the face of new science.
That's what's important... not whether he did it, but rather did everyone involved and the system itself do everything possible to ensure an innocent man was not executed. And unfortunately this seems clearly false.
If proving Willingham was a bad guy was sufficient to get him executed on faulty evidence, I guess David Martin should hope he's never on trial for anything.
As a lawyer, I am ashamed that this man is a member of my profession. As a defense attorney, I am horrified that he's on my side of the bar. His approach to defense work is not only unethical, it also appears to be sanction-worthy.
As an attorney, your job is to be a zealous advocate for your client. Period. You job is NOT to determine for yourself whether your client is guilty or innocent and then provide a defense accordingly. Your job is not to make a determination that a witness for the other side is a "straight shooter" and then cross-examine him with all due deference. Your job is not discredit potentially exculpatory evidence because it doesn't jive with your personal theory of the case or your personal impressions of the defendant. Your job is not to conduct "scientific" investigations on your own and then use those investigations to confirm your belief that your client is guilty and probably deserves to be executed. Your job is not to honor the prosecution and defer to law enforcement or make their jobs easier for them. And your job certainly isn't to go on national television after YOUR CLIENT has been EXECUTED and say, "Yeah, but he was a bad dude, anyway."
When defense attorneys fail to do anything other than zealously advocate for their clients, the integrity of our judicial system breaks down and due process is severely jeopardized. Although many people would have defense attorneys do little other than sit in the courtroom and make sure that something *really* unfair doesn't happen(because God forbid anyone get off on a "technicality"), this viewpoint runs deeply contrary to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, and threatens some of our most deeply held notions of justice. Unfortunately, many defense attorneys themselves hold these notions (Mr. Martin being Exhibit A).
Everyone always wants to hold up the easy cases as evidence of the strength of our judicial system -- the defendant that gets off when the DNA test comes back negative, the wife beater that's convicted after a series of witnesses talk about the bruises on his wife -- but it's the tough cases that count. Do we release the defendant that's been subject to abusive law enforcement practices that violated his Fifth Amendment rights, or do we keep him in jail because letting him go would be letting him off on a "technicality"? Do we offer the accused child molester a competent and zealous defense attorney, or do we cry foul as soon as counsel puts up a tough fight against the prosecution? Do we practice what we preach? Do we take constitutional protections seriously when the rubber meets the road? Or, do we defer, as other commenters noted, to white populism and what we personally think about the defendant? In Texas, it seems like the latter and it seems like all of the relevant legal players are quite happy with it being that way.
Also, can I also just say that this case has exposed the hypocrisy of the pro-death penalty camp. The vast majority of death penalty supporters I've met have said something like, "Show me compelling evidence that an innocent person was executed since the death penalty was reinstated, and I'll gladly work with you to get in repealed again." Then the Willingham case pops up and everyone goes straight to, "Yeah, but he was a bad dude, anyway."
What do people expect? That we're going to execute some lily-white grandmother that didn't have so much as a parking ticket before she was dragged through the system on a false charge? And then, only after she's been killed, think to ourselves, "What have we done??? How could we have been so blind????" That sad thing is that THAT is what looks like innocence to these people. Anything else just isn't going to cut it.
This interview has left me speechless
tressa: Thank you for you insights
Here is the way this guy is thinking ...
I am an honorable man. (We all like to think that of ourselves.)
I played a role in the conviction and execution of CTW.
An honorable person would not play a role in the execution of an innocent person.
Therefore, CTW is guilty.
Tens of millions of Texans are following the same line of reasoning, because the alternative is more than they can bear to imagine.