Claude Garrett of Tennessee served 30 years of a life sentence before the state decided the fire that killed his girlfriend was an accident. But at least they didn’t kill him.
After a judge ruled Garrett, now 65, demonstrated “actual innocence” he was released from prison on Tuesday, May 10, 2022 (see story here).
His live-in girlfriend died of smoke inhalation in a house fire. “Investigators at the time believed they found evidence that he set the blaze, but fire science has improved in the last 30 years, and a filing by prosecutors last year said they no longer believe the fire was intentionally set,” the Associated Press said.
“After an investigation found multiple alternate theories explaining how the fire could have started accidentally,” the D.A. concluded his conviction was “based on outdated investigative methods and baseless conclusions,” and dropped all charges. If they decided that last year, why did it take until now to release him? But at least they didn’t kill him.
“Overturning the case took years,” and Garrett’s lawyers had to convince the judge by “clear and convincing evidence” that “no reasonable jury” would have convicted him if jurors had known of “the new scientific evidence.” But at least they didn’t kill him.
“Clear and convincing” is a high hurdle, way above “more probably than not” and just a notch down from “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It’s a tough standard to satisfy.
Which makes you wonder: If there’s now clear and convincing evidence that he’s innocent how did a jury find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the first place? That’s a question our criminal justice system would rather not answer, because it screws up a lot. Literally hundreds of people convicted of serious crimes, including dozens on death rows, have been exonerated. But in this case, at least, they didn’t kill him.
Despite the system’s proven unreliability, courts are very reluctant to admit mistakes and set them right. Conservative Supreme Court justices, in particular, have thrown up obstacles to proving innocence. They allow judges to deny requests for DNA testing and refuse to reopen cases to consider new evidence. The entire system is strongly biased in favor of preserving the finality of judgments and preventing “endless appeals.”
But at least Tennessee didn’t kill Claude Garrett before his lawyers could prove he’s innocent. The same can’t be said of Texas, where criminal justice is sloppy, and the system has a blood lust. In 2004, Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham on facts similar to the Garrett case: A house fire that killed his three young children.
His conviction and death sentence were based on the testimony of a local fire investigator whose competence was derided by nationally recognized experts, one of whom called the prosecution case “junk science.” Texas authorities, from Gov. Rick Perry on down, brushed aside criticism of the investigation. Texas killed Willingham. And later, when the Texas Forensic Science Commission looked into the case, Perry replaced several commission members to prevent them from issuing a finding that Willingham was innocent.
An incontestably wrongful execution has long been the holy grail of the death penalty abolition movement. To date, there is no such case, and the argument that innocent people are being executed remains speculative, although the large number of death row exonerations is unsettling. In the 1990s, opponents thought they had such a case: Roger Coleman, who was executed in 1992 by Virginia for the gruesome murder of his sister-in-law. But in 2006, DNA testing confirmed that Coleman was the murderer.
Willingham’s case isn’t amenable to DNA testing, because DNA can’t tell you whether a fire was arson. Investigators make that determination from whether an accelerant (e.g., gasoline or lighter fluid) is present, burn patterns, where the fire started, and potential other causes (e.g., a kitchen fire, or electrical short). But a New Yorker article in 2009 (read it here) did a scathing takedown of Willingham’s conviction. Today, while his innocence isn’t clearly proven, he’s the most likely case of an innocent person being executed. He had the misfortune to fall prey to Texas’ murderous criminal justice system.
Ernest Willis was luckier. He, too, was convicted of setting a fatal fire and sentenced to death in Texas courts. After 17 years on death row, “subsequent interest in the case led to new investigations into the origin of the fire that determined that there was absolutely no evidence of arson” (details here). Convicted in 1987, he was freed in 2004, and I’d say he was damn lucky, given Texas’ track record.
Americans are sharply split on the death penalty along partisan lines. Conservatives decry how long it takes to execute someone, while liberals fret over the danger of executing an innocent person, racial disparity in the system (blacks are more likely to be executed for similar crimes), the barbarity of execution methods, and so on. Unlike some of my liberal acquaintances, I still support keeping the death penalty on the books, but under severe restrictions.
That’s because I think a few crimes are so heinous, and their perpetrators so evil, that some deserve to die. Torture killing is an example. So is mass murder. But I would reserve the death penalty for the awful few. It should be limited to cases where guilt is beyond doubt. Evidence that’s sufficient for conviction isn’t necessarily good enough to impose the irreversible penalty of death.
Any criminal justice system will make mistakes, because investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries aren’t perfect. So the system needs safety valves, a way to correct its mistakes. Final say shouldn’t be entrusted to people fixated on “cracking down on crime” with little or no interest in preventing or correcting mistakes. None of us want criminals to have free rein, but careful investigations and fair trials don’t have to come at the expense of public safety. Being careless with guilt and innocence doesn’t make us safer.
The problem in Texas is its death penalty is in the hands of such people. My advice is don’t live in Texas. You’re not safe there. Life is cheap there.