James Fry, a for­mer Dallas County Assistant District Attorney, changed his mind about the death penal­ty after learn­ing that he suc­cess­ful­ly pros­e­cut­ed an inno­cent man for rape. The defen­dant, Charles Chatman, was cleared 27 years lat­er by DNA. In an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News, Fry asks, ​“For years, Texas has led the nation in the num­ber of exe­cu­tions. Why don’t we now strive to lead the nation in a new direc­tion: reform­ing a jus­tice sys­tem in urgent need of reform?” Fry con­tin­ued, ​“For years I sup­port­ed cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, but I have come to believe that our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem is inca­pable of ade­quate­ly dis­tin­guish­ing between the inno­cent and guilty. It is rep­re­hen­si­ble and immoral to gam­ble with life and death.” Stating that he is no ​“bleed­ing heart” and a Republican of 30 years, he still believes that remov­ing vio­lent peo­ple from soci­ety for as long as pos­si­ble is appro­pri­ate. ​“But,” explains Fry, ​“I also believe that the gov­ern­ment should be held to the strictest bur­den before it deprives a cit­i­zen of his free­dom. It is not too much to ask that we not con­vict and exe­cute inno­cent peo­ple in our quest to enforce the law. Let’s get this sys­tem fixed.” The full op-ed may be read below.

James A. Fry: I put away an inno­cent man

When I pros­e­cut­ed Charles Chatman for aggra­vat­ed rape in 1981, I was cer­tain I had the right man. His case was one of my first impor­tant felony cas­es as a Dallas County assis­tant dis­trict attor­ney. Chatman was con­vict­ed in a court of law by a jury of his peers. They, like me, were con­vinced of his guilt.

Nearly 27 years lat­er, DNA proved me – and the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem – wrong. Chatman was freed from prison in January after DNA test­ing proved him inno­cent. He spent near­ly three decades behind bars for a crime he did not com­mit – a stark reminder that our jus­tice sys­tem is not immune from error. No rea­son­able per­son can ques­tion this sim­ple truth.

I am proud of hav­ing been a pros­e­cu­tor; it is hon­or­able work. In fact, I still have a por­trait of for­mer Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade in my law office. He was a good man, and he gave me a chance to be a tri­al lawyer. However, my unknow­ing involve­ment in pros­e­cut­ing an inno­cent man has been a trou­bling expe­ri­ence.

Chatman’s sto­ry is trag­i­cal­ly not unique. The stag­ger­ing num­ber of exon­er­a­tions attest to just how eas­i­ly the inno­cent can be con­vict­ed. Nationally, 225 peo­ple have been released from prison after DNA test­ing proved their inno­cence. Seventeen of them had been sen­tenced to death. Twenty DNA exon­er­a­tions were from Dallas County alone, the most of any U.S. juris­dic­tion. The vast major­i­ty of those exon­er­at­ed in Dallas County would still be in prison but for the fact Dallas pre­served its DNA evi­dence.

As with so many of these cas­es, Chatman was con­vict­ed on the tes­ti­mo­ny of one eye­wit­ness. Witness misiden­ti­fi­ca­tion is one of the great­est caus­es of wrong­ful con­vic­tions nation­wide, play­ing a role in more than 75 per­cent of cas­es with DNA exon­er­a­tions.

The fault in Chatman’s case, how­ev­er, lies not with the vic­tim, who hon­est­ly believed she had iden­ti­fied the right man. Instead, it lies in part with the flawed wit­ness iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures used by law enforce­ment agen­cies. Research has shown that rel­a­tive­ly small changes can great­ly improve wit­ness accu­ra­cy, changes we urgent­ly need to imple­ment.

Witness iden­ti­fi­ca­tion is not the only con­trib­u­tor to wrong­ful con­vic­tions. Far from it. Politicians – a cat­e­go­ry that includes elect­ed offi­cials, dis­trict attor­neys and judges – need to be less con­cerned about remain­ing in office and more con­cerned with deter­min­ing the truth. More effort needs to be giv­en to see that court-appoint­ed attor­neys have ade­quate com­pen­sa­tion and inves­ti­ga­tion funds. Until these issues are addressed and reforms put in place, the num­ber of inno­cent men and women sent to prison will con­tin­ue to rise.

Chatman’s case was not a cap­i­tal crime, but the prob­lems that led to his wrong­ful con­vic­tion raise the ques­tion: How can we con­tin­ue car­ry­ing out exe­cu­tions in Texas when we know the sys­tem is so prone to error?

For years, Texas has led the nation in the num­ber of exe­cu­tions. Why don’t we now strive to lead the nation in a new direc­tion: reform­ing a jus­tice sys­tem in urgent need of reform?

For years I sup­port­ed cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, but I have come to believe that our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem is inca­pable of ade­quate­ly dis­tin­guish­ing between the inno­cent and guilty. It is rep­re­hen­si­ble and immoral to gam­ble with life and death.

I am no bleed­ing heart. I have been a Republican for over 30 years. I start­ed my career as a sup­port­er of remov­ing vio­lent peo­ple from soci­ety for as long as pos­si­ble, and I still believe that to be appro­pri­ate.

But I also believe that the gov­ern­ment should be held to the strictest bur­den before it deprives a cit­i­zen of his free­dom. It is not too much to ask that we not con­vict and exe­cute inno­cent peo­ple in our quest to enforce the law. Let’s get this sys­tem fixed.”
 — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
James A. Fry was a Dallas County assis­tant dis­trict attor­ney from 1980 to 1982 and cur­rent­ly prac­tices fam­i­ly law in Sherman. His e‑mail address is jamesfrypc@​verizon.​net.

(J. Fry, ​“I put away an inno­cent man,” Dallas Morning News, May 14, 2009). See New Voices.

Citation Guide