By Matt Kelley, Online Communications Manager, The Innocence Project
A Texas state panel was expected on Friday to discuss of the hot-button case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was convicted of murder based on flawed arson science and executed in 2004. Unfortunately, the case got just 15 minutes of a six-hour meeting, and the panel's chairman continues to choose bureaucracy and secrecy over real case work.
The Willingham case -- like countless other cases involving unvalidated forensics or outright misconduct -- requires a thorough, open investigation to repair broken forensic systems and prevent future injustice. Since becoming the Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC) chairman in October, prosecutor John Bradley has not demonstrated a desire to pursue these investigations, instead focusing on the commission's structure and procedures.
The Innocence Project formally submitted the Willingham case to the commission for review in 2006, and it was accepted in 2008, but a member of the panel said Friday that the commission's investigation of the case "is in its infancy." And now, Bradley says case-specific discussions will take place behind closed doors. Bradley appointed himself to serve on a four-member committee that will review the Willingham case in secret.
Critics have complained that Bradley has used his tenure to slow the commission's work and move it behind closed doors.

Twila Jean Busby's family has waited over 16 years to witness the execution of Hank Skinner, who was convicted of murdering Busby and her two adult sons on New Year's Eve in 1993. After yesterday's reprieve, granted by the U.S. Supreme Court, their wait continues.
largest jurisdiction in the nation to use the appointment method of indigent defense - meaning the judge assigns a private defense attorney to the case. Critics have argued that the appointment method is plagued by five problems: (1) flat fee compensation (defense counsel receives a standard fee regardless of the number of hours worked, so each hour of work reduces the rate of compensation and detracts from private clients); (2) the potential for insufficient support services (defense counsel must receive approval from the judge to hire support services such as investigators and experts); (3) a potential conflict of interest for the defense attorney (defense counsel's personal income depends on remaining in the good graces of the judge to secure future appointments); (4) a potential conflict of interest for the judge (the judge must balance the defense counsel's requests for support services with the county commissioner's requests to control the costs of indigent defense; the judge must also consider the possibility that generous spending on indigent defense could hurt his/her chances of re-election); and (5) questionable appointment practices (some evidence suggests that judges occasionally make appointments for inappropriate reasons, such as whether the potential appointee is a friend or campaign contributor).