One day, nineteen hours and twenty minutes until the   10th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty   www.marchforabolition.org   See you saturday!!!!!!!!!!!   Gloria Rubac 713-503-2633 www.marchforabolition.org www.workers.org   www.bailoutpeople.org www.iacenter.org   The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man, convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do.   Todd Willingham On the gurney in Huntsville, Texas, Feb. 17, 2004 #yiv1164739257 h1 a:hover {background-color:#888;color:#fff important;} #yiv1164739257 div#emailbody table#itemcontentlist tr td div ul { list-_style_-typequare;padding-left:1em;} #yiv1164739257 div#emailbody table#itemcontentlist tr td div blockquote { padding-left:6px;border-left:6px solid #dadada;margin-left:1em;} #yiv1164739257 div#emailbody table#itemcontentlist tr td div li { margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:1em;} #yiv1164739257 table#itemcontentlist tr td a:_link_, #yiv1164739257 table#itemcontentlist tr td a:visited, #yiv1164739257 table#itemcontentlist tr td a:active, #yiv1164739257 ul#summarylist li a { color:#000099;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;} #yiv1164739257 img {border:none;} Texas Death Penalty Blog DPIC Releases New Report on Costs of the Death Penalty and Police Chiefs' Views Tonight on CNN Anderson Cooper 360: Randi Kaye Sits Down with Todd Willingham's Unethical Trial Attorney David Martin Uncomfortable jokes about executing prisoners by former Texas Death House warden DPIC Releases New Report on Costs of the Death Penalty and Police Chiefs' Views Posted: 22 Oct 2009 06:08 PM PDT The Death Penalty Information Center has released its latest report, Smart on Crime: Reconsidering the Death Penalty in a Time of Economic Crisis. The report combines an analysis of the costs of the death penalty with a newly released national poll of police chiefs who put capital punishment at the bottom of their law enforcement priorities. Click here to read the report. Click here to read DPIC's press release. Click here for the Executive Summary of the report.(DPIC, Smart on Crime: Reconsidering the Death Penalty in a Time of Economic Crisis, released Oct.. 20, 2009). See other DPIC reports. Tonight on CNN Anderson Cooper 360: Randi Kaye Sits Down with Todd Willingham's Unethical Trial Attorney David Martin Posted: 22 Oct 2009 12:51 PM PDT Tonight on CNN Anderson Cooper 360, Randi Kaye sits down with Todd Willingham's trial attorney David Martin, the one who made such a fool of himself last week on CNN. He likely will try to look less crazy tonight, but he will probably continue his unethical behavior of attacking his former client and revealing confidential attorney-client communications. Here is what happened after David Martin's last appearance on CNN. One blogger named him the Worst Defense Lawyer In The World . Last Friday morning, we posted the video from last Thursday's CNN AC 360 program when Todd Willingham's trial lawyer was on the program and made remarks that we thought violated his attorney-client obligations, which bind a lawyer even after his client has died. Now, some attorneys have begun posting about David Martin and some also seem to agree that Martin violated his ethical obligations as an attorney to his former client. After reading this blog post, if you are think David Martin should be investigated, click here to download a grievance form and send it to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, State Bar of Texas. Yesterday, TMN sent an email to attorney and blogger Mark Bennett with a _link_ to the CNN video and asked if he saw an ethics violation. He replied by posting his thoughts on his blog here. My position is that a) all facts the lawyer learns in the course of representation is privileged; and b) this privilege survives the end of representation and the client’s death. So, for example, the fact that the defense team did its own pseudoscientific experiment would be privileged and not something that the ex-lawyer would be free to reveal (without the client’s permission). Todd Willingham's appellate lawyer, Walter Reaves, has also now responded to what David Martin said on CNN, as a lawyer you ought to have some duty to not damage your client. At the very least, Mr. Martin is damaging Todd's reputation, and his ability to obtain some relief in through the forensic commission. The fact that he aligning himself with Gov. Perry ought to tell you something. At least three other lawyers have now also posted their thoughts on David Martin. Here is one on her blog Preaching to the Choir . I have nothing nice to say about David Martin after watching this appalling performance, so perhaps I should not say anything at all. Except, I have no duty of loyalty to David Martin. But I do feel a duty of loyalty to my profession. I happen to think that defending people is one of the most noble things you can do. I can go on quite a tear about how we defenders of the constitution are the true patriots and the most noble actors of all in the criminal justice system. I take my job seriously. Very seriously. My clients trust me with their lives, just as Todd Willingham had to trust David Martin. As much as I rail against prosecutors and cops who bend the rules or cut corners, no one offends me more than the defense attorney who does not live up to my high ideals for the profession. From what I've seen in this video, David Martin is the kind of defense attorney I don't ever want to be.Here is another, Scott Greenfield, who says Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Martin has no grossly improper motive, like he's been promised a judgeship by Perry if he does everything in his power to undermine the evidence of Willingham's innocence. If Martin truly believes what he's saying to be true, his statements are the most irresponsible, unethical, improper I have ever heard from the mouth of a criminal defense lawyer. Outrageously wrong. Utterly disgraceful. Here is a third, Jeff Gamso: So we know that Martin was spouting bullshit. (He claimed to have just returned from chasing cows, so maybe there's a reason.) We also know that at least one thing he talked about, the lighter fluid experiment, is covered by the work-product privilege. It's a secret. He had no business telling anyone. A clear violation of his ethical obligations. And then there's the matter of going on the air to declare his client guilty. Why in the world would he do that? To garner business? Unlikely. That's not the way you attract clients. For the glory of national television? Some people just can't resist. Whatever the reason, he was wrong. Whatever he was thinking, he wasn't thinking enough. That duty of loyalty. That obligation not to disadvantage. That lack of judgment. That putting his own interests before his client's. We hope many other lawyers speak up and that some of them file a complaint with the Texas Bar against David Martin. Eileen Smith of Texas Monthly has also written about Martin, saying in her blog In the Pink : Willingham’s trial lawyer David Martin is such a caricature of what people think of Texans that I was mortified watching it. Haven’t we been the posterior region of enough jokes this year, what with all the secession talk and Dancing With the Stars? And I’m not even a native Texan. So really, you guys should be extra-extra mortified. Right from the start of the interview, you just know it’s going to be bad. For one, Martin is wearing a cowboy hat that’s about to fall off his head. And two, the guy’s drunk as a Honduran skunk. Anderson Cooper: “David, you always believed that your client was guilty. Now after a half dozen experts have come forward to say there’s no way the fire was arson, you still say he was guilty. Why?” Martin: “Uh, Anderson, excuse my informal attire, we’ve been out checking cows… uh… tell me your question again?” Anderson: “About a half dozen fire experts around the country have looked at this case now, and say the evidence that was used… simply is not accurate…” Martin: “Ohhhh, no, that’s not what I glean from these reports here…” Sign the petition to Governor Rick Perry and the State of Texas to acknowledge that the fire in the Cameron Todd Willingham case was not arson, therefore no crime was committed and on February 17, 2004, Texas executed an innocent man. We plan to deliver the petition at the 10th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty on October 24 at 2pm in Austin at the Texas Capitol. The Texas Bar website explains how to file a complaint. What is the grievance system? The grievance system is designed to protect the public from unethical lawyers licensed to practice law in Texas. Lawyers are held accountable to a set of rules, called the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers who violate those rules are prosecuted under a set of rules, called the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Much like the criminal system, you, as the aggrieved, are not a party to the disciplinary action; you are a witness. To download these two sets of rules click here, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (PDF) and Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (PDF).. For instructions on how to download Adobe Acrobat, click here. Allegations of misconduct by an attorney are taken very seriously, and are reviewed and investigated carefully by the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. If you believe that an attorney has violated the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, you may report this information in writing to the State Bar in the form of a grievance. Some examples of Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct violations are: Conviction of a serious crime or other criminal act; Engaging in fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; Obstructing justice; Influencing improperly a government agency or official; Engaging in barratry; and Practicing law when the lawyer is on inactive status or has been suspended. It is important to note that malpractice and attorney misconduct are not necessarily the same. An attorney can commit legal malpractice and not be in violation of the disciplinary rules, or he ir she can be in violation of the disciplinary rules without having committed legal malpractice. Uncomfortable jokes about executing prisoners by former Texas Death House warden Posted: 22 Oct 2009 11:27 AM PDT The following in Stephen Dean's report on Jim Willet's recent talk at the University of Houston. Joking about executions was more than some students and college professors were ready to hear, especially when the stand up comic was in charge of executing so many Texas prisoners.   The warden who oversaw the Walls Unit in Huntsville, giving the order to go ahead with 89 executions, joked about sending inmates to their death as he spoke to a University of Houston Downtown lecture Tuesday night, but some students and staff expressed discomfort as they talked about it outside the event.   Jim Willett had copies of his two books for sale as he addressed the UHD Criminal Justice Lecture Series.   Now head of the Texas Prison Museum in Huntsville, he never focused on one single theme or message as he addressed a room full of around 80 students, faculty and visitors. He began telling several stories and then stopped, midway, and told the audience he needed to back up or he had forgotten details.   In answering one student's question, Willett said an inmate had clearly told the prison chaplain minutes before his execution that he was innocent of the crime he was about to die for. As the audience sat and digested his statement, he said he meant to say that the inmate had admitted his guilt.   Willett was responding to a question about whether he ever gave the command to execute an inmate that he believed may be innocent. Willett said the inmate in his botched story had told the chaplain that he really was guilty, but he gave a final statement professing his innocence because he just couldn't stand the thought of telling his family he was guilty.   While joking or making fun may be an understandable part of on-the-job stress relief for prison workers when no one else is around, Willett's jokes about sending prisoners to their death took students, faculty and others in attendance by surprise.   He said that one inmate was strapped to the gurney and asked for a piece of gum because his mouth was so dry. In a move of compassion, the executioner stepped up and unwrapped a piece of candy that was plopped into the inmate's mouth. The warden said that inmate just started chewing and chewing on that candy. Then Willett said he stepped around to the inmate's other shoulder and asked the inmate if that happened to be a Livesaver.   While a few uncomfortable laughs were heard in the UHD auditorium, others looked to the floor.   Willett then continued his story and said the inmate replied that he was hoping that it was, indeed, a Lifesaver, but he didn't think it was working.   Willett also says he joked with another inmate who was about to die, over the gesture the warden would give to start the execution. He said that the inmate had heard a national radio interview, in which Willett said his signal to the executioner was to simply take off his reading glasses when the inmate's final statement was finished. When the glasses come off, the executioner starts the lethal drugs flowing through the IV.   Willett gleefully said he asked this particular inmate how he'd know when the final statement was finished, and he said the inmate replied that he would just tell the warden to take off his glasses.   But that joke wasn't over for the UHD crowd.   Willett said he sternly told the inmate not to say such a thing during his final statement to the witnesses in the execution chamber. He said he was very firmly telling him not to do something, but he chuckled with the UHD college crowd and said he found it strange that he was threatening an inmate who was about to die. After all, said Willett, what could he possibly threaten this person with anyway?   Willett's story about taking off his glasses to signal the executioner has been repeated many times since he started selling books. He told a KPRC Local 2 interviewer about his trademark move for a report that aired after his retirement from TDCJ. It was also immortalized in that radio broadcast that the now deceased convict had mentioned hearing, since that NPR broadcast received a Peabody Award.   At the UHD event, he admitted that he copied that move from the past warden.. Perhaps that past warden didn't take so much joy in telling about this move, which is why it's ripe for this warden to use as new material.   Willett also said he followed the advice of that past warden by waiting exactly three minutes from the time the inmate appears to die before calling in the doctor to pronounce the inmate dead. He said the past warden had indicated this was 'just to be safe' so he figured he should follow that protocol.   On the first execution he presided over, he said it was the longest three minutes of his life.   Willett told several stories of how he was compassionate in the final hours or moments of a convict's life, almost as if he was bragging. In one case, he says he allowed a series of phone calls that are normally off limits, in other cases he says he allowed cigarettes for the condemned even though TDCJ has been smoke free since the 90's.   At first, Willett said there were almost never any problems in finding a vein to insert needles on both arms of the inmate. Then later, he was asked a specific question and he admitted one instance where veins could not be easily found so only a single needle was inserted in one arm. After he gave the order to start the execution, he said the inmate turned to him and announced the needle had fallen out.   Willett said he closed the curtains to shield the witnesses, and those witnesses were led out so that they could be led in to start all over again once the needle had been replaced.   He said he often tapped people who are not state employees to help him with the difficult task of starting the final IV's for executions under his watch. When pressed for exactly what he meant, he remained vague but he said he would sometimes find people who had experience in starting IV's during the Vietnam War since they would be perfect for the task in the stressful Texas Death Chamber.   On the subject of needing to round up help in executing convicts, Willett said several employees who executed Karla Faye Tucker asked to be removed from the execution detail. He said some called in sick the following day and others sought counseling, while others said it changed how they looked at executions. Tucker was one of two women to be executed on Willet's watch. The other, he said, went smoothly. However, Tucker's was complicated by the immense national media attention since she had claimed to be a born-again Christian and shots of her praying were all over the national news as her execution approached in 1998. She was condemned for a barbaric 1993 drug-fueled pickax slaying of two people.   Willett said his entire 'strap down team' and anyone having any part of the execution always handled it with professionalism and that was always important to him.   He said that he would watch carefully because anyone who seemed to enjoy executions had no place in the execution process.   He said he would quickly call them in and take them off the execution detail if they seemed like they'd be unprofessional about such a somber task.   In this reviewer's opinion, Willett should follow his own advice and take himself off the execution detail for his book tour.   From a reporter who has been an official witness of two executions and covered dozens more: This UHD book-selling lecture was likely the worst example of insensitivity and glee from a TDCJ Death House employee being on display in such a disturbing manner. You are subscribed to email updates from Texas Death Penalty Blog To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610