The state bar of Texas has filed a formal misconduct accusation against the prosecutor who secured a conviction in one of the country’s most dubious and disputed death penalty cases. Earlier this month the bar lodged a petition in Navarro County, near Dallas, alleging that John Jackson withheld evidence that pointed to the innocence of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 for the murder of his three young daughters, who died in a house fire in 1991. “Before, during, and after the 1992 trial, [Jackson] knew of the existence of evidence that tended to negate the guilt of Willingham, and failed to disclose that evidence to defence counsel,” it reads.
After 11 years, it appears that justice may about to finally be served in Texas. There’s one big question that no one seems to be able to answer, though: Who’s going to un-kill Cameron Todd Willingham? I’ve written about Willingham’s case for several years, and while there were significant doubts about his guilt in the years prior to his execution, it turns out that he may have been done in by some egregious (and possibly criminal) prosecutorial misconduct. When John Jackson’s alleged misconduct combined with then-Governor Rick Perry’s desire to appear tough on violent crime, the denouement was inevitable. Willingham never stood a chance, and he was murdered by the State of Texas…for what else can the state-sanctioned execution of an innocent man in the name of political expediency be called but murder?
Given the serious and mounting questions surrounding Willingham’s case, a reasonable and humane governor might have felt it prudent to err on the side of caution and stay the execution in order that the truth might be ascertained. Unfortunately, “reasonable and humane” have never been words that would accurately describe Rick Perry, who’s always been more concerned with burnishing his political bona fides when it comes to Texas justice than in doing the right thing.
Despite mounting concern that Willingham was innocent, the former Texas governor Rick Perry refused to stay his execution. In 2009, after an investigation by the Texas Forensic Science Commission found that the arson evidence was faulty, Perry replaced the board’s chairman and two other members and called Willingham “a monster”.
The execution was briefly a contentious topic during Perry’s bid for the Republican nomination for the 2012 US presidential election. During a debate, Perry was asked whether the possibility of having executed an innocent person made it hard for him to sleep at night. “No, sir, I’ve never struggled with that at all,” replied Perry, now a possible Republican presidential candidate again.
If Perry possessed even the barest shred of human decency and self-awareness, he’d recognize and admit that Willingham isn’t the real “monster.” HE is. A rational and humane person doesn’t decide to plow ahead with an execution when confronted with suspicion that evidence in a capital murder case may be faulty. A monster does, because all he cares about is being seen as a righteous leader who believes in swift and sure justice. Except that justice in this case, while it may have been swift, as far as Texas executions go, was hardly sure.
Texas almost certainly executed- nay, murdered- an innocent man for a heinous crime he didn’t commit. While the prosecutor, John Jackson, may be punished to whatever the fullest extent of the law may be, Rick Perry will never be called to account, and NO ONE will be able to un-kill Cameron Willingham.
This seems a good time to argue that an eye for an eye might be a fair resolution to this travesty of justice.
