Todd Willingham Case: Public Comment Period at Next Meeting of Texas Forensic Science Commission April 23 in Dallas Area

The Texas Forensic Science Commission has posted its agenda for its meeting in Irving, Texas on April 23, 2010 at the Omni Mandalay Hotel at Las Colinas, 221 E. Las Colinas Blvd, Irving, Texas (Map and directions). The meeting starts at 9:30 AM, but is expected to last all day and the public comment period will be at the end of the meeting.

The agenda includes a period to accept comments from the public, although the proposed new rules on public comments say that the public comment period may be eliminated, reduced or postponed "if deemed necessary due to time constraints or other exigent circumstances". Each commenter will be given three minutes and must fill out a form and give it to the commission coordinator before the meeting.

Students Against the Death Penalty plans to attend the April 23 meeting and we encourage members of the public who wish to make comments to the commission to attend also. The commission needs to hear that the public wants them to speed up the process of investigating the Todd Willingham case and discussing the report given to the commission by Dr Craig Beyler, so that Texas can determine whether faulty forensic science lead to the wrongful conviction and execution of an innocent person.


Agenda for Texas Forensic Science Commission Meeting April 23, 2010

Rick Casey expects no major progress in the investigation until after the November election. He says in his Houston Chronicle column today:

The commission just posted its agenda for next week's meeting, again drawn up by Bradley though this time honoring some suggestions from commissioners. The first item: approval of Bradley's nominations for a number of committees, including an “investigative panel” for the Willingham case.

For that three-member panel, Bradley called his own number. The other two are Dr. Nizam Peerwani of the Tarrant County medical examiner's office and Sarah Kerrigan, the Scotland Yard-trained head of the forensic science graduate program at Sam Houston State University. Peerwani is one of Perry's new appointees. Kerrigan has been critical of Bradley's leadership.

Little progress expected

The group's first meeting is set for next Thursday, the day before the commission's meeting. Since it is scheduled for just two hours and is not expected to hear from Beyler or any other witnesses, don't look for it to advance the process much.

Bradley said he had planned to have the commission question Beyler at the October meeting, hear from critics of his report at the February meeting and then produce a final commission report by the spring or summer.

He said the nine members of the commission, a much smaller body than most congressional committees, were comfortable handling the matter as a whole.

If Bradley wanted to press the matter, I suppose he could push the investigative panel to produce a report by the July meeting and take action then or at the October meeting.

But to expect that, I suspect, would be doubly naive.

Scott Henson at Grits for Breakfast wrote a post critical of Bradley for creating the new three-person committee for the Willingham case instead of allowing the full commission to deal with it and for appointing himself as one of the members. Henson also suggested how the other commission members should handle the situation by making a motion to reconsider.

If one believes - as admittedly I do - that the Governor ousted his old appointees last fall and replaced them with Bradley and Co. for the purpose of scuttling the Willingham inquiry until after the election, then these new rules and committee assignments set them up admirably to accomplish the task. Particularly telling was the chairman's brazen decision to assign himself to the committee assessing the Willingham case. From the Startlegram: "The notion that he would be on this particular committee in light of everything that has gone on in the last year is particularly inappropriate," said Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth. "A suspicious mind would be concerned about nefarious activities."

Burnam's right about Bradley and the appearance of neutrality. The Williamson County DA has already been sharply, publicly critical of the arson expert commissioned to investigate the lack of scientific rigor in the evidence presented at the Willingham trial. Bradley even tried to prevent the scientist from testifying before a legislative committee that requested his views on the role of expert testimony unrelated to the case.

What's more, a second member of the three-person committee, Dr. Peerwani, was also appointed last fall after the Governor interceded tochange the direction of the commission. So two of the three committee members evaluating the Willingham case were people who, by all appearances, were appointed to the Commission primarily to impede the investigation, not get to the bottom of the matter. Given that, there's a decent chance the thing never gets voted out of committee - that's what I'd do if I just wanted to kill it.

That's why, IMO someone on the commission should bone up on their parliamentary procedure and make a "motion to reconsider" at their next meeting later this month, because they were sold a pig in a poke. The Commission made the decision to create this new committee structure based on false pretenses, believing it wouldn't apply to pending cases. I was liveblogging the hearing at the time, and here's how I recorded the exchange on whether the Willingham case would go through the new committee process:

Dr. Kerrigan asked whether these rules apply to pending cases or new ones. Good question! Bradley said new or recent cases would be affected but not those already in the pipeline. A commissioner asked particularly whether cases where they'd already spent money on outside consultants would now have to go through the new process. Bradley said "no."

Later, though, just before the meeting ended:

Bradley backtracked after the rules passed to say old cases like Todd Willingham's in fact will go through his new committee process. That's a complete 180-degree flip from what he told the commission members twenty minutes ago, back when Commissioner Kerrigan told the chair her vote depended on his answer.

The next day, in a post reviewing the meeting, I accused Bradley of:

Dissembling: When a commissioner told the chairman her vote hinged on whether old cases already in the pipeline - including ones where the Commission had already paid outside consultants (there are only two) - would be subjected to the new committee process, Bradley said no, they would not. After the vote, when the meeting had nearly ended, Bradley insisted that Willingham's case must go through "part of" the new committee process. If he'd been honest about that during the debate, IMO a majority of commissioners present wouldn't have supported his rules.

That's sufficient reason to initiate a motion to reconsider, which is allowable under Robert's Rules if the motion is made by anyone - say, Dr. Kerrigan or her allies on the board - who voted for the rules at the last meeting. I think the Commission should reconsider and clarify the rules to have pending, longstanding cases bypass this new committee, which is what they were told would happen before they voted to create it.

More on How John Bradley Violated Texas Open Meetings Act at TFSC Meeting

Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle had a column yesterday on how Rick Perry's handpicked puppet/chair of the Texas Forensic Science Commission violated the Texas Open Meetings Act (PDF) at Friday's meeting, which was held in Harlingen. The Dallas Morning News' Trailblazer blog first reported on Bradley's violation of the TOMA. Bradley should be removed as chair of the Commission. He has proven by his handling of the first meeting that his main goal was to cover-up and impede the investigation into whether Texas relied on faulty arson evidence to execute a person who did not kill anyone.

One of the Commission members should offer a motion at the next meeting of the Commission to recommend that Rick Perry replaces Bradley as chair. Bradley is an elected district attorney. He knows about the TOMA. He obviously violated the act on purpose as part of his cover-up of the Willingham investigation. The commission members should also read up on Robert's Rules of Order to make sure they know how to exercise their own authority to control Bradley.

From Rick Casey:

Friday started badly for John Bradley, the Williamson County district attorney selected last fall by Gov. Rick Perry to ride herd over the troublesome scientists on the Texas Forensic Science Commission.

His first official act of the morning was to violate the state's open meetings law.

Then his day got worse.

This was the first meeting of the commission under Bradley, who was appointed last September. His first official act was to cancel a meeting three days later at which the commission was scheduled to receive a report from a nationally renowned arson expert hired by the commission in its first high-profile case.

The meeting had drawn national attention because the expert found that the arson investigation that helped lead to the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham for the murder of his children was badly flawed. It was especially controversial because Perry had rejected a request to delay Willingham's execution based on similar expert analysis.

Bradley unilaterally wrote the agenda for Friday's meeting to focus on new policies and procedures, omitting the Willingham report. He also unilaterally chose Harlingen (which is as close to Mexico City as to Fort Worth, where three of the nine uncompensated and busy commission members live), making wrong my snide prediction that he would hold the meeting in Presidio to discourage reporters.

The session took place in a modest meeting room at a Marriott Courtyard Hotel. A few area reporters were seated around the walls, as well as a handful of protesters carrying signs. A camera crew from the national Innocence Project streamed the meeting live on the group's Web site.

But Bradley evicted an Austin-based documentary crew before the meeting started. One of its members called the attorney general's office in Austin, which sent a message to Barbara Dean, the assistant district attorney who has attended all of the commission's meetings, providing legal guidance since its inception.

Film crew admitted

An hour and a half into the meeting, Dean, seated behind Bradley, tapped him on the shoulder and quietly spoke into his ear. He announced a 10-minute break, and when the meeting resumed the film crew was in the room.

When I asked Bradley about the matter, he curtly told me to talk to the film crew. I said I had and he replied with annoyance: “Then you know.”

His defensiveness was understandable. Enforcement of the Open Meetings Act is the responsibility of local district attorneys such as himself.

Grits for Breakfast liveblogged the meeting, which you can read here.

Grits also has a post listing reasons why the commission members should be upset by Bradley's handling of the meeting.

Usurping power from commissioners: Bradley refused to put "action items" on the agenda that were designated in the minutes from the last meeting.
Hijacking the meeting agenda: The chairman arrived in Harlingen with a detailed set of "rules" that were never authorized by the commission and insisted they focus on them exclusively.

Concealing key activities from commissioners: Most FSC members were never told the chair was drafting rules nor did they authorize him to do so. They were first informed of the rules' existence and given a draft the day before the meeting.

Wasting commissioners' time: After spending all day on "rules," the chairman revealed at the end of the meeting that the commission had no rulemaking authority, announcing that these were only voluntary "guidelines" representing an informal agreement that is "not even enforceable on ourselves."

Ignoring "process": Though the Commission historically operated under Robert's Rules, Bradley ran the meeting on a "consensus" basis, which removed limits on the chair, obfuscated members' right to control the process, and allowed Bradley to railroad through his agenda.

Dissembling: When a commissioner told the chairman her vote hinged on whether old cases already in the pipeline - including ones where the Commission had already paid outside consultants (there are only two) - would be subjected to the new committee process, Bradley said no, they would not.

After the vote, when the meeting had nearly ended, Bradley insisted that Willingham's case must go through "part of" the new committee process. If he'd been honest about that during the debate, IMO a majority of commissioners present wouldn't have supported his rules.

Off the Kuff says Bradley's performance on Friday is a good reason for Senator John Whitmire "to have another hearing about the Commission and what Bradley is doing to it".

Today, we learned about more misbehavior by John Bradley. He tried to interfere with a legislative hearing held Jan 11 by the Chair of the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.

As we said yesterday, John Bradley "should be removed as chair of the Texas Commission on Forensic Science. He has proven by his handling of the first meeting that his main goal was to cover-up and impede the investigation into whether Texas relied on faulty arson evidence to execute a person who did not kill anyone".

As reported by Gary Scharrer in The Houston Chronicle:

Gallego had a committee hearing on Jan. 11 to focus on rules of evidence. He invited Beyler to testify.

In a Jan. 26 letter, Beyler told Gallego: "Mr. Bradley.... asked me not to appear before your committee. He was apparently concerned about your motives in inviting me and was very concerned that you wished to do the Commission harm."

"I was not at all convinced by his concerns and decided to come to Austin. As it turns out, his fears were wholly without merit. I very much appreciated that the committee members did not ask questions about the pending TFSC work," Beyler wrote in the letter to Gallego.

The veteran lawmaker said it's its improper to tell witnesses not to show up for a hearing.

"I'm really disappointed that he (John Bradley) would attempt to interfere in a legislative hearing in that fashion," Gallego said.

But Bradley, the district attorney in Williamson County, say he simply told Beyler "that his status as an expert in a case pending before the Forensic Science Commission made it potentially a conflict to serve as a witness in a hearing related to such matters before the conclusion of an investigation."

"Mr. Beyler had already damaged his reputation for impartiality by publicly commenting on the recent appointment of new commissioners. By entering the political arena, he gave ammunition to those people who might question his impartiality," Bradley said. "Having heard Mr. Beyler's presentation to the House Committee, it appears that he wisely edited his remarks to avoid further damaging his reputation. No one prevented him from testifying. It is naive to think that his invitation was unrelated to his work for the commission."

But Gallego said: "Our hearing was about the rules of evidence, and we told everybody that up front. There was no effort on my part to talk about anything else. If those cases came up by name, they came up peripherally."

Rick Casey: Let’s give Judge Keller a free lawyer

The following is a great column by Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle about Sharon Keller's request for the State of Texas to pay her legal fees.

Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, says the State of Texas is violating her constitutional rights.

We are not paying for an attorney to defend her against charges by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission’s charges involve a controversy in which she allegedly rebuffed attempts by lawyers for a condemned man to file a last-minute appeal based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier on the day of his execution.

Keller faces the equivalent of a trial that could result in her removal from the bench.

In a response filed Tuesday, Keller says the charges “are unconstitutional because (Keller) has been denied the right to counsel by the Texas and United States Constitution.”

The response, prepared by her attorney Charles L. Babcock, cites neither the provisions in the constitutions nor in case law supporting such an interpretation, but this taxpayer would be willing to provide an attorney for her.

After all, we provide attorneys for accused criminals.

True, we don’t hire lawyers for accused criminals who make $152,500 a year, as Judge Keller does.

And we provide lawyers only for indigents in danger of losing their freedom or their lives, not simply their jobs like Judge Keller.

And we don’t allow indigent defendants to choose their own free lawyers, particularly the highly regarded likes of Mr. Babcock.

A ruinous legal bill

Keller wants the taxpayers to pick up the “usual and customary fees” of Babcock’s firm, despite the fact that, according to the filing prepared by Babcock, hiring him is to “risk a financially ruinous legal bill to defend against these charges which are without merit.”

The judge should know better, especially in these tough times, than to ask us taxpayers to agree to a lawyer whose usual and customary fees can lead to a ruinous legal bill. However, I personally would be willing to chip in for the kind of lawyers whom Keller has found acceptable for people whose lives were at stake. Lawyers like:

• Robert McGlohon, who was appointed by Keller’s court to represent a death row inmate shortly after the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a law requiring for the first time that indigent condemned men and women be provided tax-paid attorneys for the automatic habeas corpus appeal.

McGlohon had been a lawyer less than three years, had never even assisted on a death penalty case, and was suffering serious health problems. The appeal he filed was so inadequate that it didn’t raise any issues that are required in habeas filings. McGlohon, apparently aware of his failings, didn’t even file a bill on the case.

When later lawyers filed a competent habeas appeal, Keller joined in the majority in ruling it improper because a defendant got only one shot at the target.

In a dissent, then-Judge Morris Overstreet called the decision “a farce and travesty,” and a federal judge called it “a cynical and reprehensible attempt to expedite petitioner’s execution at the expense of all semblance of fairness and integrity.”

• David K. Chapman, who was also appointed by Keller’s court and also was inexperienced in death penalty cases. The State Bar had suspended him twice before the appointment and once shortly after, but probated the suspensions. He was bipolar and admitted it affected his performance. Among other things, Chapman forfeited his client’s right to take the case into federal court by missing a deadline.

Three fellow judges found the attorney to have been incompetent, but Keller, in the majority, wrote that he must be competent only at the time he was appointed, and the fact the bar gave him probation showed it “still found counsel to be competent to practice law.”

• Any lawyer with serious narcolepsy. Keller has joined in opinions ruling that a sleeping defense lawyer is not necessarily ineffective, including an opinion that suggested it may be a strategy to win sympathy from the jury.

It didn’t work for those late defendants, but maybe it would for Keller.

Adventures in Wonderland Starring Sharon Keller as the Red Queen

The Houston Chronicle's Rick Casey has some interesting commentary in his column Sunday about the shenanigans at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on the day that Sharon Keller closed the court instead of accepting an appeal from a man set for execution that day. It is vital that Keller stand trial so that the public can find out more about the workings of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Vince Leibowitz, a reporter for a blog called Capitol Annex, reported this week that several judges on the state’s highest court for criminal matters want their chief judge, Sharon Keller, to resign.

Keller has been charged by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with violations of the judicial conduct code in connection with her alleged refusal to keep the court clerk’s office open for a last-minute appeal for a death row inmate, or to inform the judge assigned to take last-minute appeals that the inmate’s lawyers were attempting to file one.

Now Keller must face the equivalent of a public trial and could lose her office.

Leibowitz quotes his source as saying the judges, at least some of whom would have to testify, feared more media scrutiny could hurt their re-election chances.

Their concern is justified. A good portion of the public might be alarmed to know, for example, that the judges acted a bit like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland.

“Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards.”

Life rarely imitates art exactly. As usual, it was a little more complicated.

Convicted murderer Michael Wayne Richard was set to be executed by lethal injection at 6 p.m. Sept. 25, 2007. That morning the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a case called Baze v. Rees challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection.

According to the formal charges by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, Judge Cathy Cochran at 11:29 a.m. e-mailed to Keller and her other colleagues an Internet link to the Kentucky Supreme Court decision that was being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The document then says that in “early afternoon” the court’s general counsel, Edward Marty, “began drafting a proposed order for the court in anticipation of Mr. Richard’s appeal based on Baze. The Honorable Judge Tom Price drafted a dissenting opinion in anticipation of Mr. Richard’s appeal and circulated the dissent to the other judges.”

What the document omits is that the judges first took an informal vote. I have it on good authority that the tally was 5-4 to turn down Richard’s appeal.

They made up their minds without waiting for the arguments of Richard’s lawyers.

David Dow, the University of Houston Law Center lawyer who headed Richard’s defense team, called the procedure “outrageous.”

“It’s the equivalent of them sticking their fingers in their ears,” he said. The judges may well have felt confident they could anticipate the arguments, and they didn’t want to wait until late in the day to begin taking up the matter.

h/t TMN

Weekend Editorials on Sharon Keller

The Austin American-Statesman's editorial says that Sharon Keller should not resign and should stand trial, because "at trial, the sordid events of Sept. 25 would be aired before Texas and the world. Keller's cold-blooded and process-centered approach to justice would be on vivid display. A trial would expose Keller's heartless missteps to a fascinated world."

The all-Republican Court of Criminal Appeals is this state's court of last resort in criminal cases, and its reputation for rubber-stamping convictions was well-established before Richard's appeal was rejected. Putting the most important criminal judge in Texas on trial for misconduct is an opportunity to expose the court's long record of callous and reckless disregard for defendants' rights.

...

Keller's defense is a distinction without a difference. And it perfectly illustrates her focus on process over justice. Keller did not tell the other judges that she refused to accept the appeal nor did she refer Richard's plea to Judge Johnson. Every one of those missteps and others would be intensely examined in a trial and should result in her removal from office.

This issue has never been about Richard's guilt or innocence, but about the lack of common decency in refusing his appeal because it would arrive after 5 p.m. Keller should answer for her actions in a public trial.

The San Antonio Express-News in its Sunday editorial called the the misconduct charges against Texas Court of Criminal Appeals President Judge Sharon Keller a "welcome development."

Keller's actions drew an immediate outcry. Even the most passionate death penalty advocates want the judicial system to operate fairly, and Keller denied Richard reasonable access to the court.

The Hearst Austin Bureau reported that the charges against Keller mark “the first case that could result in a public trial and possible removal of a statewide judge.”

Keller has 15 days to file a response, and the case could lead to trial before a special master, Hearst reported.

While Keller's actions in the Richard case violate our sense of justice, she deserves her day in court on the charges.

Regardless of the outcome, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct deserves kudos for having the courage to act in this situation. Public confidence in the system's ability to police itself should be bolstered by the commission's action.

The Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey explains the trial process and Sharon Keller's options. "If Keller doesn’t like what these judges decide she can appeal to the state Supreme Court — if her lawyers get their filings in on time."

Based on the evidence it heard during these “informal hearings,” the court could have gone so far as to publicly reprimand Keller. Instead, at least seven members voted in December to initiate a process that could lead to Keller’s removal. Willing cautioned that the vote doesn’t signal that the commission thinks Keller should be removed. It may be that they seek more information that may result from the more adversarial process to come.

It will begin with the appointment of a “special master” by Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson of the state Supreme Court. The master could be from a district court or an intermediate court.

That judge will conduct in public what will look very much like a civil trial, with John McKetta III, an Austin lawyer who will serve without pay as the lead “prosecutor” for the commission, and a lawyer for Keller putting on witnesses for examination and cross-examination.

The special master will then issue a “finding of facts,” but will not decide Keller’s fate. Instead his or her findings will be returned to the commission, which will hear from both sides and possibly take new evidence in a public hearing, and then retire to decide whether to recommend Keller’s removal. That’s right: recommend.

A judge, it seems, must be judged by judges.

So Chief Justice Jefferson will pick by lot a seven-member “review tribunal” from a pool consisting of one member chosen by each of the state’s 14 intermediate courts of appeal. The first picked will be chairman.

The tribunal will hold yet another hearing and possibly take more new evidence, then decide whether to accept the commission’s recommendation or impose a tougher or more lenient sanction.

If Keller doesn’t like what these judges decide she can appeal to the state Supreme Court — if her lawyers get their filings in on time.

2008: Harris sends nobody to death row

Thats the title of Rick Casey's column for the Houston Chronicle.

First I learn that Houston's air is getting cleaner.

Now I learn that we haven't sentenced a single scumbag murderer to death this entire year.

This is not the city I signed up for.

In 1999, Houston displaced Los Angeles as the smoggiest city in the nation. This year we set a record low with only 16 days exceeding federal standards for ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient.

In 2003, the year I moved here, Houston sent nine murderers to death row.

That was 35 percent of the state's death sentences that year, an amount that is more than twice our 16.5 percent share of the state's population.

From 15 a year to zero

In 2004, we did even better, accounting for fully half of the 20 Texans who landed on death row.

Back in the 1990s, a less populous Harris County was even more prolific in sending murderers to meet their Maker — or not.

For the five years beginning in 1993, Harris County condemned more than 15 annually, contributing 39 percent of the state's migration to death row.

But this year, which for capital crime trial purposes is basically over, we've contributed precisely zero percent to the state's nation-leading cadre of dead men walking.

The Rosenthal factor?

I know what you're thinking: That's what happens when at the beginning of the year you banish the tough-on-crime likes of Chuck Rosenthal for minor indiscretions such as using his office computer for racist, romantic and obscene e-mails. (Separate e-mails, not racist, romantic and obscene all in one.)

And, oh yes, defying a federal judge's direct order by erasing a couple of thousand other e-mails that could have proved even more entertaining.

But acting District Attorney Ken Magidson declines to take either credit or blame for the county's paltry annual contribution to death row.

Magidson said he personally reviewed each capital crime to see if prosecutors could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they met "the standards set by law" for the death penalty.

Only two death-penalty cases were presented to juries. In one of them, prosecutors agreed a plea bargain of 60 years during the trial. In the other one, the defendant was acquitted, more on which below.

Statistics from the past three years agree with Magidson's suggestion that he wasn't the difference. From 2005 through 2007, Harris County condemned just seven men, or 15 percent of the Texas total.

Prosecutors throughout the state appear to be seeking the death sentence less often. This year only 16 cases have come to trial (and one currently under way).

In addition, juries appear to be showing more skepticism. One found the accused not guilty. One jury hung on the question of guilt. Four juries found the accused guilty but chose life sentences without possibility of parole.

One was the jury in the sole Harris County death penalty case — that of Juan Quintero, an illegal immigrant convicted of shooting a police officer four times in the head during a traffic stop.

"When you have a Texas jury refusing to give the death penalty to an illegal immigrant who killed a cop — if the significance of that doesn't speak volumes, nothing will, " said David Dow, an anti-death penalty activist and professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Dow believes that Texas juries have joined the national mainstream. The recent passage in Texas of the sentence of life without parole offers some jurors a satisfying alternative to death (which is why Rosenthal and other Texas district attorneys long opposed it).

What's more, say Dow and others, with the advent of highly publicized DNA-based exonerations, jurors across the country have become more concerned about imposing the death penalty.

In August, Michael Blair was released after 14 years on Texas death row. DNA evidence cleared him of the 1993 rape of a 7-year-old girl.

Dow notes that while Texas jurors seem to have joined the rest of the nation in increasing concern about the finality of the death penalty, state officials "seem to be uniquely stubborn."

In other states, executions have been slowed. But not in Texas. According to figures compiled by the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Texas this year has performed 18 executions, exactly the number as the rest of the nation combined.

The runner-up was Virginia with four. Florida executed only two.

Texas already has 11 executions scheduled for next year, running only into March.

Only one is from Harris County. Tarrant County has three.

So it looks like we may lose our title as the Death Penalty Capital of America.