Evolution of Fire Investigation and Its Impact on Arson Cases

T he first step in investigating an alleged arson fire is to make certain that the fire was, in fact, intentionally set. Except in the most obvious cases, this step requires expert assistance from a knowledgeable fire investigator. Unfortunately, many practicing fire investigators in the United States today are not knowledgeable, and this has led to several high-profile miscarriages of justice. Ernest Ray Willis served 17 years on death row in Texas for setting a fire that was, in all probability, an accident. Willis was granted a new trial based on Brady violations and ineffective assistance of counsel, and when he reviewed the science, the new prosecutor declined to retry the case. (cert. denied).) He was executed after 12 years on the same death row based on " expert " testimony that was described by a consultant hired by the state as " hardly consistent with a scientific mindset and [is] more characteristic of mystics or psychics. " Other high-profile cases that have been chron-icled recently include Amanda Hypes of Louisiana, who was wrongly accused of setting a fire that killed her three children, and Kristine Bunch of Indiana, who was wrongly convicted (and is still serving time) for setting the accidental fire that killed her young son. Dozens of other innocent citizens have been wrongly convicted of arson, but there is no DNA to set them free. Postconviction relief is rare, but seems to be happening more frequently in arson cases. James Hebshie in Mas-sachusetts had his conviction vacated based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and the government declined a retrial. (United States v. Hebshie, 754 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D. Mass. 2010).) George Souliotes in California won an evi-dentiary hearing based on new science/new evidence and a claim of actual innocence.