TX: Important Reforms Passed
Austin, Texas (June 22, 2007) - The 2007 Texas legislative session ended recently with two significant victories for The Justice Project and our allies. The Justice Project is proud of the improvements in two significant areas of criminal justice reform – forensic oversight and access to post-conviction DNA testing.
Forensic Science Commission
The legislature allocated $500,000 to the Texas Forensic Science Commission for the next two years and separately funded a full-time staff person for the Commission, to be based at Sam Houston State University. The Forensic Science Commission was created in May 2005 and held its first meeting last October, but it has been hampered by delays in appointing members and the lack of an operating budget.
Over one year ago, the commission received a formal request to investigate scientific negligence and misconduct in two arson cases – one of which resulted in an execution – in which forensic experts relied on scientifically invalid interpretations of evidence. Ernest Willis was eventually exonerated after being convicted of arson murder because of the bogus arson testimony, but Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004 based on essentially the same kind of scientifically baseless interpretations of evidence.
The full funding of the commission represents an important step toward much needed oversight of the criminal justice system, and the initiative was a key part of The Justice Project’s Texas legislative agenda.
Post-conviction DNA Testing
A bill improving access to post-conviction DNA testing has passed the Texas Legislature and is currently awaiting Governor Rick Perry’s signature. This bill substantively improves Texas’ post-conviction DNA processes by ensuring a timely response from the state when an inmate requests post-conviction DNA testing and allows inmates to use independent accredited testing laboratories, rather than state facilities. The bill also provides a clear path for additional forensic testing — at the state’s expense — if a court determines DNA testing does not settle questions about guilt. Finally, the bill prevents a court from dismissing a petition for DNA testing in cases where there was a formal confession or other admission of guilt. The provision is important because of the documented history of false confessions that have been proven by DNA testing and because some judges routinely rejected inmate requests for post-conviction DNA testing in cases involving confessions because “identity was not at issue” in their cases.
