Judge recommends habeas relief in conviction based on junk arson science

Following a habeas hearing in district court discussed earlier on Grits, Judge George Allen in McLennan County has recommended a new trial based on expert testimony that the arson investigation in the two-decade old case was profoundly flawed. See related coverage:

• Texas Observer: After serving 25 years, Ed Graf may finally receive a new trial 
• Texas Observer: Judge recommends new trial for Ed Graf; see also the Observer's 2009 coverage of the case.
• Waco Tribune-Herald: Judge's okay puts Graf one step closer to new trial in murder
• KWTX-TV: Judge recommends new trial for local man convicted of sons' fiery deaths

Graf's case will be the first time the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will consider whether a defendant convicted based on junk arson science may be entitled to habeas relief, or at least the first since the whole controversy over the Todd Willingham case brought international attention to the subject. But precedents at the high court are all over the map regarding whether such convictions can be overturned when the science changes or improves, and several judges on the CCA think it shouldn't be allowed. The Texas Legislature this spring will consider a bill (expected to be filed next week) to close that gap in state habeas law to clarify that new, potentially exonerating scientific evidence can provide a basis for post-conviction relief. The measure is one of two recommendations from the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions that the Legislature has not yet acted upon (the other is to require police to record custodial interrogations). For Graf's sake, and others similarly situated, I hope it passes this time around.

This morning Grits is headed to the Forensic Science Commission meeting where they'll hear a presentation on the status of the arson review being conducted by the state fire marshal and my employers at the Innocence Project of Texas. After the politicized brouhaha surrounding the Todd Willingham case, it's a welcome relief to see these topics addressed in a calmer, more thoughtful and systematic fashion. But unless and until the Legislature or the court clarifies that false convictions can be overturned based on new, exonerating science, it's impossible to envision how the end-game will play out, either in Graf's case or others involved in the arson review.