Texas Gov. Could Face Criminal Charges for Interfering with Death Penalty Review


21 October 2009

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is facing questions about his responsibility 
for wrongfully executing Cameron Todd Willingham, convicted of arson 
for a fire that killed his daughters, despite new expert analysis 
showing there was in fact zero evidence of arson. An investigation 
into the execution has already found that Perry was given the new 
evidence to review —which should have shown him that all the evidence 
of guilt was actually scientifically unfounded testimony— but chose 
not to stay the execution pending review of the trial process and 
evidence.

When the investigation began looking into Gov. Perry’s review of the 
process, what he knew and when he knew it, he refused to reappoint 
the sitting chair of the commission and replaced him and two other 
members with conservatives sympathetic to his point of view. The new 
commissioner has canceled testimony from a leading arson expert that 
would discredit the case used to execute Willingham.

Gov. Perry is locked in a serious challenge within his own party from 
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who says his politicization of the death 
penalty has put the entire system at risk. There are also mounting 
concerns the governor in fact saw the new evidence and even received 
a direct communication from Willingham’s lawyer requesting a stay, 
but deliberately chose to ignore clearly exculpatory evidence for 
political reasons.

If that is indeed the case, Gov. Perry might face legal consequences 
for knowingly putting an innocent man to death to further his own 
political career. That question has not been put forward explicitly 
by the state’s investigators, and Gov. Perry’s moves to change the 
makeup of the panel by appointing potential allies are a clear 
attempt to prevent it from being posed formally, but allegations the 
governor’s office sought to halt the investigation suggest precisely 
the possibility he knew he was executing an innocent man and umis 
worried about the legal and political fallout should his actions be 
formally investigated.

For his part, Gov. Perry is now aggressively attacking Willingham in 
the court of public opinion, seeking to make his death seem a welcome 
end to a reign of terror by calling him a “monster” and saying he 
beat his wife to force her to have an abortion. Perry hopes to 
persuade a majority of voters to see him as a man who did his civic 
duty in putting a murderer to death. But even Republicans are now 
questioning Perry’s personal responsibility and commitment to the 
integrity of the system.

Could a governor empowered by law to approve death sentences, but 
also to halt them before they are enforced, actually face homicide 
charges, should he be seen to have knowingly executed an innocent man 
for personal gain? Certainly federal law provides ways such a charge 
and/or verdict could come to pass — for instance felony murder based 
on abuse of office, or violating a citizen’s civil rights by denying 
him his day in court (with the new evidence).

What is perhaps more surprising than that this situation has arisen 
or that such questions are being raised —this has long been expected 
to some degree, given the radically pro-death penalty political 
climate in Texas— is the fact that Gov. Perry appears to have so 
brazenly and publicly sought to interfere in the process and evince 
his personal wishes that the matter never be fully reviewed.

The point has many times been made, by both opponents and responsible 
proponents of capital punishment, that everyone, every citizen and 
every politician, had the same very real interest in making sure the 
system never permits an innocent person anywhere near death row. 
Perry, however, seems determined not to take any action that would 
ensure the integrity of the system.

Either he does not claim and does not want any responsibility over 
the system, in which case, one imagines he is unfit to serve at the 
top of it, or he has taken it upon himself to impede the progress of 
justice, conceal evidence and unilaterally assert the reliability of 
a process, while refusing to use its last true humane tool to 
scrutinize the process and side with justice, in which case…

It gets easier to see over time why Perry wants the investigation 
halted. He has put far more Americans to death than any living 
official. And Willingham was not the first case he simply shrugged 
off as settled and in no need of review. How many of those cases will 
suddenly become suspect, if 1) Willingham is formally found innocent 
and 2) evidence emerges that the governor ignored exculpatory 
evidence and executed an innocent man, not just as a result of a 
travesty of justice but with specific personal political and 
professional gain in mind? In how many of those cases did Perry 
consciously or even explicitly consider personal political benefit as 
tied to ending a human life?

Opponents of the death penalty already smell blood in the water and 
are beginning to view Perry as easy prey. If they can show that the 
single most prolific executioner in the United States ignored 
evidence, gamed the system and put people to death banking on the 
political benefits of having done so, it will breathe new life into 
the abolitionist movement. Perry must fight not only that political 
battle, but also the perception that his attempt to end the 
investigation might be a criminal coverup.

http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2009/10/21/4939/texas-gov-could-
face-criminal-charges-for-interfering-with-death-penalty-review/