In the end, as the number of scandals continued to rise and a conflict over who would run the Dallas County Democratic Party became more contentious, it became simple to miss the significant contribution that Craig Watkins, a former district attorney for Dallas County, made to the improvement of the judicial system in this country and elsewhere in the world.
Craig Watkins, who passed away last week at the age of 56, was a revolutionary, and if there was ever a man who deserved a statue recognizing his public service, it would be none other than him. And we are familiar with the exact location. I will elaborate further on that in a moment.
Given that this is coming from the Dallas Observer, we understand that it may come across as somewhat hypocritical. When everything was said and done, we were just like other media sources and we were drinking from the cup of schadenfreude. During the time that Watkins’ political career and reputation were being harmed by a string of scandals and mistakes, he handed in his resignation. With regard to his troubled personal finances, we wrote about it. When we wrote about the investigations into his use of his office’s forfeiture funds, we included the $50,000 in confiscated money that was paid to settle a claim after he rear-ended a car while driving an SUV, which was also acquired through civil forfeiture. We reported on his efforts to become a powerbroker in the Dallas County Democratic Party by assembling a slate of candidates to the Democratic judges who are now serving in their positions and the chair of the party.
In addition, we reported on the fact that Watkins was charged with contempt of court when he filed a criminal case against Al Hill III, accusing him of forging a loan document. “Hill brought charges against Watkins for faking up the charges against him as a favor to Lisa Blue, a wealthy lawyer, who was trying to get money out of Hill for fees,” columnist Jim Schutze, who had previously written for the Observer, stated in 2013. Under oath, a judge questioned Watkins about whether or not he had, in fact, initiated charges against the wealthy individual in order to assist the wealthy attorney in extracting money from him. As for Watkins, he declined to respond.
Watkins would eventually become the only Democrat in a countywide contest to lose a bid for re-election in 2014, and the weight of all of this reporting, provided by both us and others, would eventually contribute to this outcome. Despite the fact that each of these accounts was true, they were somewhat insignificant in comparison to Watkins’ decision in 2007 to establish the very first Conviction Integrity Unit in the country. This unit was specifically designed to investigate and uncover instances of unjust convictions. Gary Udashen, a criminal defense attorney who is also a board member of the Innocence Project of Texas and a past president of the organization, claims that the decision made by Watkins represents a pivotal moment in the way that prosecutors all over the world handle their investigations.
According to Udashen, “He demonstrated that it is possible to fulfill the role of a prosecutor while simultaneously seeking justice.” According to him, Watkins was the “first person as a District Attorney anywhere who put that aspect of the job into effect,” and in recent years, this mindset has expanded across the country.
Watkins’ effort was given further weight by the fact that it was carried out in Dallas County, which had a reputation for having hard-ass prosecutors who were eager to tilt the scales against black defendants and defend dubious convictions at any cost. Watkins was the first elected black district attorney in Texas to carry out action of this nature. Udashen adds that urban counties all over the United States and in Texas have their very own units that are very similar to one another.
It is also crucial to note that opinions have shifted. In the past, prosecutors would often oppose requests from defense attorneys to re-examine DNA evidence. However, in recent years, they have become more dedicated to “conviction integrity,” which means ensuring that individuals who are incarcerated are there because they are deserving of it. Watkins is praised by Udashen for his bravery, which he expressed when he did it. (The fact that Dallas County has a policy prohibiting the destruction of evidence after a conviction was beneficial. According to The Dallas Morning News, this circumstance resulted in perhaps twenty exonerations during the time that Watkins was in office.
Russell Wilson II, a Dallas attorney who was selected by Watkins to work on the unit in 2011, was instrumental in securing the exoneration of thirteen individuals while he was employed there. According to him, the beginning of the unit was met with criticism.
Wilson explains that this was not always something that everyone was in agreement with. People who were opposed to the political party and other individuals who did not want their previous work to be critiqued were quite vocal in their opposition. I think today the CIU is widely accepted and not subject to the same types of criticisms you would have received in years past, but early on, there was intense criticism and pushback from what I’ll call stakeholders, but people have come around.”
It is said by Wilson that Watkins’ legacy extends beyond bringing the guilty to justice.
“The lessons of the CIU have translated to the front lines so that no prosecutor would set out to convict the wrong person, or to rely on junk science evidence,” Wilson says. “At this point in time, the vast majority of prosecutors are making use of these lessons in order to guarantee that their convictions and prosecutions are accurate. Despite the fact that you have witnessed a surge of policy reforms, you do not necessarily envisage as many people being exonerated at this time.
According to Udashen, the influence has been transmitted along to the juries. When it comes to considering the testimony of eyewitnesses and experts, jurors are typically more cautious, and they are also more aware that prosecutors are potentially prone to making mistakes.
None of this praise for Watkins is meant to overlook the problems that arose during his time as DA, but we all have feet of clay: Let’s not bury the good Watkins did with his bones. Nor do we mean to give short shrift to lawyers like Udashen and Wilson and countless other attorneys, law students and academics who continue to fight on behalf of the wrongly convicted. That work deserves honor, and we’re serious when we say that a statue of Craig Watkins would be a grand way to celebrate both his and their legacy.
Oak Lawn Park is the location that we believe would be most suitable for the installation of this statue. Formerly known as Lee Park, it was once home to a huge sculpture honoring Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee until the city of Dallas wised up in 2017, had the statue removed and renamed the park. That means there’s space there now that would be perfect for a statue of Watkins. Something life-size in bronze seems appropriate, maybe with the words, “Craig Watkins: He set the innocent free.”
