There is much buzz in Texas about a hearing that the notorious Judge
Charles Baird intends to hold this week on the Willingham case. According to this story
by Steven Kreytak in the Austin-American Statesman, the Innocence
Project went to their favorite judge to ask
for a court of inquiry to examine whether the crime of "oppression" had
been committed in this infamous case. (See links to prior
posts at the end of this one.) Now, you wouldn't think that Texas law
would allow such blatant judge-shopping, and you would be right. Courts
of inquiry are governed by Chapter 52 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 52.01(b)(2) provides,
From the press reports, one would think that Judge Baird is actually going to conduct the Court of Inquiry this week and decide the question of whether there was a violation of the law in Willingham's case and (by the way) whether Willingham was actually innocent.
But Judge Baird has no authority to decide those things. All he has authority to do is request the presiding judge to name another judge to conduct the inquiry. Willingham's petition further asks him to "Declare that Mr. Willingham was wrongfully convicted, and that all legal disabilities attaching to him or his survivors as a result of that conviction are forever removed."
Judge Baird has no authority to enter such a declaration in this proceeding, and such an order would be void.
Oh, and there aren't any "legal disabilities." Willingham is dead, and we haven't attached disabilities to criminals' family members since long before Texas was a state. Of course, Willingham doesn't have any descendants any more. He burned them all alive.
After the affidavit has been entered into the minutes of his court and a copy filed with the district clerk, the judge shall request the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district in which the affidavit is filed to appoint a judge to commence the Court of Inquiry. The judge appointed to commence the Court of Inquiry shall issue a written order commencing the Court of Inquiry and stating its scope. The presiding judge shall not name the judge who requests the Court of Inquiry to preside over the Court of Inquiry.
From the press reports, one would think that Judge Baird is actually going to conduct the Court of Inquiry this week and decide the question of whether there was a violation of the law in Willingham's case and (by the way) whether Willingham was actually innocent.
But Judge Baird has no authority to decide those things. All he has authority to do is request the presiding judge to name another judge to conduct the inquiry. Willingham's petition further asks him to "Declare that Mr. Willingham was wrongfully convicted, and that all legal disabilities attaching to him or his survivors as a result of that conviction are forever removed."
Judge Baird has no authority to enter such a declaration in this proceeding, and such an order would be void.
Oh, and there aren't any "legal disabilities." Willingham is dead, and we haven't attached disabilities to criminals' family members since long before Texas was a state. Of course, Willingham doesn't have any descendants any more. He burned them all alive.
Prior posts on the Cunningham case:
The Willingham Case, September 3, 2009
Texas Forensic Science Developments, October 1, 2009
Firing Back in the Willingham Case, October 6, 2009
More on Willingham Case, October 16, 2009
A Note of Caution on Willingham, October 19, 2009
Willingham's Last Words, October 20, 2009
Statement on Willingham, October 26, 2009
The Willingham Case, September 3, 2009
Texas Forensic Science Developments, October 1, 2009
Firing Back in the Willingham Case, October 6, 2009
More on Willingham Case, October 16, 2009
A Note of Caution on Willingham, October 19, 2009
Willingham's Last Words, October 20, 2009
Statement on Willingham, October 26, 2009

Leave a comment