NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently the question of whether one is innocent or not isn't sufficient reason to halt one's execution.

Court declines to hear death-row appeal (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1015/p03s02-usju.html)(emphasis added)

The US Supreme Court has refused to take up the case of a Georgia death-row inmate who says the courts have denied him an opportunity to prove his innocence even after seven of nine trial witnesses changed their testimony.

The high court announced Tuesday that it had decided not to hear the appeal of Troy Anthony Davis, who was convicted and sentenced to die for the 1989 shooting death of a Savannah police officer.

Mr. Davis's Sept. 23 execution was halted by the Supreme Court two hours before it was set to take place. Tuesday's action by the justices sends the Davis case back to Georgia, where a new execution date is likely to be set.

The justices, who are sharply divided over the death penalty, did not comment on the case, and there were no dissents.

Death-penalty opponents said they were disappointed. "It is disgraceful that the highest court in the land could sink so low when doubts surrounding Davis' guilt are so high," said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA, in a statement.

Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, said in a statement that the high court offered "the mere appearance of justice" in the Davis case. "Mr. Davis deserves to have his claims of innocence fully evaluated," she said.

At issue in the appeal was whether lower courts erred in failing to allow Davis a hearing to closely examine affidavits of changed testimony by trial witnesses. Lawyers for Davis say seven witnesses at his trial have recanted their testimony that implicated Davis as the shooter in the police officer's death. The lawyers also say they obtained statements from four new witnesses implicating someone else as the killer.

Lawyers in the Georgia attorney general's office dispute claims by Davis that no court has ever examined his new evidence. "The majority of [Davis's] affidavits have previously been presented and reviewed in state and federal habeas proceedings," writes Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker in his brief to the court.

"[Davis] has availed himself of numerous opportunities to challenge eyewitness testimony identifying him as the shooter," Mr. Baker writes, adding that lawyers for Davis raised the same issue during his trial 17 years ago.

The attorney general's brief quotes Davis's lawyer presenting his closing argument to the jury at the 1991 trial: "But what about the quality, the credibility of those witnesses," the lawyer asked the jury.

"You, the jurors in this case, are the sole judges of the credibility of those witnesses," he said. "Seven witnesses put on that stand by the State of Georgia recanted, contradicted, or changed their testimony."

Courts set a high standard to overturn a conviction and grant a new trial. A convict must present new evidence that had never been introduced at the trial, and it must be evidence strong enough to suggest the original verdict was wrong.

The issue in the Davis case is whether judges considering Davis's motion for a new trial should have granted him a hearing to allow an examination of his affidavits and other evidence.

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 against granting Davis such a hearing. In reaching that result, the majority justices analyzed the affidavits and said they were unconvinced of Davis's innocence.

In contrast, the three dissenting justices concluded that the court was setting the bar too high in cases involving claims of actual innocence. All that had to be demonstrated, the dissenting justices said, was that the new evidence taken as a whole would create the probability of a different outcome if a new trial were held.

To do that, Davis's lawyers didn't have to prove his innocence, according to the dissenting justices. His lawyers just had to show that a reasonable doubt remained about whether he was the shooter. Even if a new jury might still find Davis guilty, the new testimony could create enough doubt to prevent imposition of the death penalty, the dissenting justices said.

The 1989 shooting took place at about 1 a.m. outside a Burger King near the bus station in Savannah.

Davis, Sylvester "Red" Coles, and a teenager were threatening a homeless man who refused to share his beer with them. At one point, Davis struck the homeless man in the head. Amid the commotion, an off-duty police officer who was still in his police uniform arrived on the scene. Davis ran. The police officer took chase. At some point, shots were fired and the officer fell to the pavement. Witnesses said Davis walked back to the police officer and shot him again at close range. One witness said Davis was smiling as he fired.

Davis disputes these facts. He says Mr. Coles shot the police officer. Coles says Davis was the shooter.

The "new" witness affidavits were gathered by Davis's lawyers in 1996 and between 2000 and 2002.

The affidavits include statements by two individuals recanting their earlier testimony that Davis had admitted independently to them that he had killed the police officer. Affidavits from three other individuals say that Coles had admitted to each of them independently that he killed the police officer, not Davis. In addition, there are several affidavits from eyewitnesses who had identified Davis as the shooter but who later said they couldn't be sure who the shooter was because the crime scene was dark and confusing.

The majority justices on the Georgia Supreme Court said they were not impressed by the affidavits, which they found to be vague and subject to differing interpretations.

Does this bother anyone else?

Note: Before anyone says "but the article says", I know what the article says. It attempts to present both sides of the question. I'm not convinced by the arguments made by Georgia.

I'm with the three Georgian dissenters.

I'm surprised that no sitting SC justice commented on it - it would appear a good case for the dissenters to voice their opinions.

it always bothers me when "due process" is more important than proveable innocence.

seems like it undermines our faith in justice and that that is a bad thing.

Relax, if the courts got it wrong, they only need to resurrect him!

Oh, wait, it's not possible, is it?

*speechless*

Although I always hestitate to rely on Wiki, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Anthony_Davis) seems to have a good summary of the case and links to more information for those that are interested.

Here (http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1758.pdf) (pdf), for example, is the Georgia Supreme Court opinion that denied Davis's claim. I'm reading it right now.

Trust the government. They who hold public office cannot make mistakes. If you disagree, you're automatically wrong. Oh, wait, that's not how it's supposed to work???

I oppose the death penalty for this reason: There is always the chance that the executed may be innocent, no matter how iron-clad the evidence may be. There is always a chance of error. Cases like this where there is apparently significant evidence that favors the accused that the courts won't allow are proof of the fallibility of all court systems.

My first impression after reading the article is that I agree with SCOTUS, but disagree with the Georgia Supreme Court.

And the death penalty, btw.

I find it funny that we appoint these people and allow them to interpret our laws, they all have huge amounts of experience in dealing with such things. They've all reviewed the case thoroughly. A decision was made. And yet...one newspaper article makes it obvious that they made the wrong decision.

I'm going to put my confidence in the Supreme Court. This is just a stunt.

I find it funny that we appoint these people
"We"?

"We"?

*sighs* I'm sorry. Allow me to restate for the deliberately argumentative. We elect officials to appoint and approve of the members of the Supreme Court...I.A.W. the Constitution of the United States of America.

("We in the above statement has been redefined to mean the voting members of the Country of the United States of America.)

*sighs* I'm sorry. Allow me to restate for the deliberately argumentative. We elect officials to appoint and approve of the members of the Supreme Court...I.A.W. the Constitution of the United States of America.

'Indirectly, we appoint them' would have been better. That's all. :p

Although I always hestitate to rely on Wiki, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Anthony_Davis) seems to have a good summary of the case and links to more information for those that are interested.

Here (http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1758.pdf) (pdf), for example, is the Georgia Supreme Court opinion that denied Davis's claim. I'm reading it right now.
Beyond reasonable doubt?I don't think so.

I find it funny that we appoint these people and allow them to interpret our laws, they all have huge amounts of experience in dealing with such things. They've all reviewed the case thoroughly. A decision was made. And yet...one newspaper article makes it obvious that they made the wrong decision.

I'm going to put my confidence in the Supreme Court. This is just a stunt.

Are you really going to argue that we should never question a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Beyond reasonable doubt?I don't think so.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying the evidence against Davis doesn't meet the reasonable doubt test or that he fails to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt?

To be clear, a jury did find Davis guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The issue is whether he should get at least a hearing to challenge that verdict, based on new evidence.

Apparently the question of whether one is innocent or not isn't sufficient reason to halt one's execution.
Does this bother anyone else?

Note: Before anyone says "but the article says", I know what the article says. It attempts to present both sides of the question. I'm not convinced by the arguments made by Georgia.
I don't think we know enough. Certainly the courts have had access to all the affidavits and prior testimony. My thought, though, is that if there's a doubt, then there is no doubt. Hear the case unless there is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, but then tell us what it is.

To be clear, a jury did find Davis guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The issue is whether he should get at least a hearing to challenge that verdict, based on new evidence.
And when it's a capital case, the answer to that should be "yes" - except perhaps in special circumstances...

Well, this is incredibly depressing. And now I have "Dire Wolf" running through my head, which doesn't help.

I don't think we know enough. Certainly the courts have had access to all the affidavits and prior testimony. My thought, though, is that if there's a doubt, then there is no doubt. Hear the case unless there is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, but then tell us what it is.That's the thing, I agree with that, and so did three of the seven Georgia justices, whom we may assume had that access.

Sheesh, the Georgia Supreme Court majority opinion is scary. It basically says that if each new bit of evidence is taken alone, that isolated piece of evidence is not sufficient by itself to prove that Davis was innocent. :rolleyes:

From the dissent by 3 of the 7 Georgia SC Justices:

In this case, nearly every witness who identified Davis as the shooter at trial has now disclaimed his or her ability to do so reliably. Three persons have stated that Sylvester Coles confessed to being the shooter. Two witnesses have stated that Sylvester Coles, contrary to his trial testimony, possessed a handgun immediately after the murder. Another witness has provided a description of the crimes that might indicate that Sylvester Coles was the shooter. Perhaps these witnesses’ testimony would prove incredible if a hearing were held. Perhaps the majority is correct that the alleged eyewitness’s testimony will actually show Davis’s guilt rather than his innocence. But the collective effect of all of Davis’s new testimony, if it were to be found credible by the trial court in a hearing, would show the probability that a new jury would find reasonable doubt of Davis’s guilt or at least sufficient residual doubt to decline to impose the death penalty. Accordingly, I would order the trial court to conduct a hearing, to weigh the credibility of Davis’s new evidence, and to exercise its discretion in determining if the new evidence would create the probability of a different outcome if a new trial were held.

Well, this is incredibly depressing. And now I have "Dire Wolf" running through my head, which doesn't help.

Yeah, someone caught the reference. :tongue:

The SCOTUS was right to refuse to hear the case; their purpose is NOT to determine the facts in any given case, but to examine the constitutionalityand impact upon the constitution of those cases they feel are important enough to warrant such scrutiny.

However, the Georgia Court has set the bar too high on appeals of fact.

Yeah, someone caught the reference. :tongue:

It was a different song heard playing...

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/political-picture-vladimir-putin-georgia-on-my-mind.jpg

The SCOTUS was right to refuse to hear the case; their purpose is NOT to determine the facts in any given case, but to examine the constitutionalityand impact upon the constitution of those cases they feel are important enough to warrant such scrutiny.

However, the Georgia Court has set the bar too high on appeals of fact.

I partially agree with you, but I find the idea that a defendant's actual innocence isn't relevant to due process rather disturbing.

EDIT: In other words, I think this case illustrates the impact of Herrera v. Collins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=506&page=390), 506 U.S. 390 (1993), in which a majority held it didn't violate the Constitution to execute someone that was actually innocent. I think that is scary.

It's okay. I'm sure that the President will commute his sentence to life just to be safe.

*tries to keep a straight face*

I partially agree with you, but I find the idea that a defendant's actual innocence isn't relevant to due process rather disturbing.

I can understand that - I find it somewhat apalling myself. However, given the near-unlimited power of the Supreme Court to make rulings binding any and everyone, in many ways their rather limited remit does serve as a check against possible abuse of power.

Apparently the question of whether one is innocent or not isn't sufficient reason to halt one's execution.

<snip>

Does this bother anyone else?

Note: Before anyone says "but the article says", I know what the article says. It attempts to present both sides of the question. I'm not convinced by the arguments made by Georgia.
It bothers the hell out of me. I am opposed to the death penalty in general, on principle, but I am actually disgusted by the application of the death penalty in the US. Disgusted by it.

Are you really going to argue that we should never question a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court?


I'm saying it seems to be good enough to overrule the states' own right to sovereignty in enough cases. Why isn't it good enough to enforce their sovereignty?

I'm saying it seems to be good enough to overrule the states' own right to sovereignty in enough cases. Why isn't it good enough to enforce their sovereignty?
Sovereignty? What are you talking about?

I'm saying it seems to be good enough to overrule the states' own right to sovereignty in enough cases. Why isn't it good enough to enforce their sovereignty?

Because they don't have sovereignty. :p

I'm saying it seems to be good enough to overrule the states' own right to sovereignty in enough cases. Why isn't it good enough to enforce their sovereignty?

WTF are you talking about?

EDIT: Your own questioning of Supreme Court decisions that "overule the states' own right to sovereignty" seems to admit that you don't actually believe the Supreme Court should never be questioned.

Sheesh, the Georgia Supreme Court majority opinion is scary. It basically says that if each new bit of evidence is taken alone, that isolated piece of evidence is not sufficient by itself to prove that Davis was innocent. :rolleyes:

From the dissent by 3 of the 7 Georgia SC Justices:

In this case, nearly every witness who identified Davis as the shooter at trial has now disclaimed his or her ability to do so reliably. Three persons have stated that Sylvester Coles confessed to being the shooter. Two witnesses have stated that Sylvester Coles, contrary to his trial testimony, possessed a handgun immediately after the murder. Another witness has provided a description of the crimes that might indicate that Sylvester Coles was the shooter. Perhaps these witnesses’ testimony would prove incredible if a hearing were held. Perhaps the majority is correct that the alleged eyewitness’s testimony will actually show Davis’s guilt rather than his innocence. But the collective effect of all of Davis’s new testimony, if it were to be found credible by the trial court in a hearing, would show the probability that a new jury would find reasonable doubt of Davis’s guilt or at least sufficient residual doubt to decline to impose the death penalty. Accordingly, I would order the trial court to conduct a hearing, to weigh the credibility of Davis’s new evidence, and to exercise its discretion in determining if the new evidence would create the probability of a different outcome if a new trial were held.
But don't the questions of quality, reliability, motivation, etc of the recanting witnesses come up? People say things for all kinds of reasons. What's to make us believe these witnesses this time?

Also, it appears that this trial lacks any real physical evidence, including a murder weapon. [This fact makes me wonder how the death penalty was ever levied in the first place] Doesn't that make it even harder to have a trial that's also fair to the victim? Justice is supposed to work both ways, right?

Sovereignty? What are you talking about?

This is the sovereignty I was talking about.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What seems to be a little known fact of the Constitution is that anything not specifically spelled out to the federal government is a right of the state and/or people.

The federal government was never meant to be all powerful and making laws that control everyone to make us all alike. The states were supposed to individually decide how they wanted to live within the Constitution, of course.

Back to the subject at hand, the Supreme Court has oft weilded it's loose interpretation of the Constitution to go with what's politically popular at the moment and everyone cheers. Now we question when they do something unpopular like support *gasp* the death penalty.

WTF are you talking about?

EDIT: Your own questioning of Supreme Court decisions that "overule the states' own right to sovereignty" seems to admit that you don't actually believe the Supreme Court should never be questioned.

Yes. I do think the Supreme Court has made several political decisions over the years. I think they did it on the ideal and not the law of the Constitution. However, we are stuck with their decisions and interpretations. That's the point of s Supreme Court.

This is the sovereignty I was talking about.

What seems to be a little known fact of the Constitution is that anything not specifically spelled out to the federal government is a right of the state and/or people.

The federal government was never meant to be all powerful and making laws that control everyone to make us all alike. The states were supposed to individually decide how they wanted to live within the Constitution, of course.

Back to the subject at hand, the Supreme Court has oft weilded it's loose interpretation of the Constitution to go with what's politically popular at the moment and everyone cheers. Now we question when they do something unpopular like support *gasp* the death penalty.

*sigh*

1. Nice job of ignoring the Ninth and, more importantly, the 14th Amendment. Under the 14th it is expressly not up to states to decide how or whether they would obey the Constitution.

2. You appear to be confusing the powers of the different branches of government. The justifications for federal laws are different than the justification for Supreme Court decisions.

3. I'm not questioning this Supreme Court decision because it is "unpopular" or even because it supports the death penalty. (Although I am queasy about the application of the death penalty in this country, I don't necessarily object to it in principle.) I even think that SCOTUS might well be right in this case, but the Georgia Supreme Court was wrong and I object to a line of Supreme Court cases that say innocence isn't an objection to a death sentence.

Yes. I do think the Supreme Court has made several political decisions over the years. I think they did it on the ideal and not the law of the Constitution. However, we are stuck with their decisions and interpretations. That's the point of s Supreme Court.

So, if you happen to agree with them, no one should question the Supreme Court?

So, if you happen to agree with them, no one should question the Supreme Court?

Yes...That's what I'm saying...?

But don't the questions of quality, reliability, motivation, etc of the recanting witnesses come up? People say things for all kinds of reasons. What's to make us believe these witnesses this time?

Which is why neither I nor the Georgia Supreme Court dissenters are saying that Davis should simply be released. Instead, there should be at least a hearing to determine whether Davis is entitled to a new trial. If Davis were granted a new trial, the previous testimony of these witnesses would be admissible and they could be cross-examined by the prosecution.

Also, it appears that this trial lacks any real physical evidence, including a murder weapon. [This fact makes me wonder how the death penalty was ever levied in the first place] Doesn't that make it even harder to have a trial that's also fair to the victim? Justice is supposed to work both ways, right?

How does executing an innocent man help the victim? I would think that, to the extent a victim has an interest, it would be in seeing the right person punished.

I love how people can get so snide and condescending, claiming others don't "understand" the constitution, then proceed to give these erroneous, inaccurate, and frankly ass backwards explanations that would make a first year law student cringe.

I love how people can get so snide and condescending, claiming others don't "understand" the constitution, then proceed to give these erroneous, inaccurate, and frankly ass backwards explanations that would make a first year law student cringe.

They make me cringe and Im not even in law school yet.

I wonder who bribed those witnesses....

*sigh*

1. Nice job of ignoring the Ninth and, more importantly, the 14th Amendment. Under the 14th it is expressly not up to states to decide how or whether they would obey the Constitution.

2. You appear to be confusing the powers of the different branches of government. The justifications for federal laws are different than the justification for Supreme Court decisions.

3. I'm not questioning this Supreme Court decision because it is "unpopular" or even because it supports the death penalty. (Although I am queasy about the application of the death penalty in this country, I don't necessarily object to it in principle.) I even think that SCOTUS might well be right in this case, but the Georgia Supreme Court was wrong and I object to a line of Supreme Court cases that say innocence isn't an objection to a death sentence.

It isn't. That's how they make it to trial in the first place, claiming innocence. That fact has already been decided. Guilty, next question.

Aside from that, the tenth ammendment says the United States. It doesn't specify a branch.

And I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing how the fourteenth relates?

It isn't. That's how they make it to trial in the first place, claiming innocence. That fact has already been decided. Guilty, next question.

Sure, if a fact has been decided based on evidence, and it later turns out the validity of that evidence is questionable, does that not call into question the accuracy of the initial finding?

And I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing how the fourteenth relates?

not surprised.

Sure, if a fact has been decided based on evidence, and it later turns out the validity of that evidence is questionable, does that not call into question the accuracy of the initial finding?


Certainly. However, a claim of innocence is precocious and inaccurate. The claim is that new evidence has been revealed, not that they are innocent.

Certainly. However, a claim of innocence is precocious and inaccurate. The claim is that new evidence has been revealed, not that they are innocent.

I don't think anybody here has advocated he be released, or even that he get a new trial, based on his claim of innocence.

However his claim of innocence coupled with evidence that tends to back up that claim should warrant a new trial.

I don't think anybody here has advocated he be released, or even that he get a new trial, based on his claim of innocence.

However his claim of innocence coupled with evidence that tends to back up that claim should warrant a new trial.

Apparently not.

To be clear, a jury did find Davis guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The issue is whether he should get at least a hearing to challenge that verdict, based on new evidence.
Curious point - doesn't this case illustrate the total fallacy of trial by jury? That a man could be convicted and sentenced to death on very limited evidence seems a travesty, but a natural consequence of making ill-informed laypersons responsible for the verdict.

In essence, what is being argued here is that the verdict by the jury cannot be trusted (since the appeals concerning rescinded and contrary witness statements that could be made now were already (EDIT - Some of them, anyway, which seems to be the basis for rejecting the hearing in to the request for an appeal) made to the Jury at the time), which is perhaps entirely true, but totally outrageous from a perspective of current legal process. What kind of precedent would be set if juries could be rechallenged until the verdict went the defendent's way? (EDIT - since precedent would probably note that there was some new evidence, this might not be such a big deal, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless)

Wait, I actually know the answer to this one - it'd be the end of the death penalty. And while I quite like that, Georgia's Supreme Court, apparently, would not.

Apparently not.

Apparently not by whose standards? 4 out of 7 people on Georgia's Supreme Court disagreed with me. Doesn't mean they're right.

Curious point - doesn't this case illustrate the total fallacy of trial by jury? That a man could be convicted and sentenced to death on very limited evidence seems a travesty, but a natural consequence of making ill-informed laypersons responsible for the verdict.

In essence, what is being argued here is that the verdict by the jury cannot be trusted, which is perhaps entirely true, but totally outrageous from a perspective of current legal process. What kind of precedent would be set if juries could be rechallenged until the verdict went the defendent's way?

Wait, I actually know the answer to this one - it'd be the end of the death penalty. And while I quite like that, Georgia's Supreme Court, apparently, would not.

The specific problem in THIS instance is it appears that the reliability of some of the evidence only fell into question AFTER the trial. It's less questioning the finding of the jury, and more questioning the evidence they used to make their finding.

Apparently not by whose standards? 4 out of 7 people on Georgia's Supreme Court disagreed with me. Doesn't mean they're right.

So who is right? And what is your definition of right?

So who is right?

I think the dissent is. If sufficient evidence is revealed post trial that suggests a reasonable jury would alter their initial opinion after hearing the new evidence, a new trial should be held.

And what is your definition of right?

The correct one.

I think the dissent is. If sufficient evidence is revealed post trial that suggests a reasonable jury would alter their initial opinion after hearing the new evidence, a new trial should be held.



The correct one.

Obscure, but vague.

It doesn't bother you at all that this is just a lawyer trying to trick the system? If you're so interested in legal games, it should be settled in your mind that the legal decision is made at the highest levels and the case is closed.

Obscure, but vague.

It doesn't bother you at all that this is just a lawyer trying to trick the system?

What "trick the system"? If a lawyer exposes a fault with the criminal justice system, then good on the lawyer and the system should be changed.

If you're so interested in legal games, it should be settled in your mind that the legal decision is made at the highest levels and the case is closed.

I accept that a decision has been made. I reject the implication that just because it was made I should agree with it.

Yes, a decision was made. The wrong one.

I'd call this a farce, but farces are supposed to be funny. This is a travesty of justice.

Obscure, but vague.

It doesn't bother you at all that this is just a lawyer trying to trick the system? If you're so interested in legal games, it should be settled in your mind that the legal decision is made at the highest levels and the case is closed.

So you have no problem with questionable evidence and coerced testimony being used to convict a person?

Seven on the nine have recanted. One of the remaining two has been implicated....

What "trick the system"? If a lawyer exposes a fault with the criminal justice system, then good on the lawyer and the system should be changed.



I accept that a decision has been made. I reject the implication that just because it was made I should agree with it.

Yes, a decision was made. The wrong one.

You don't think that it's a little suspicious that the defendant's lawyer started snooping around and got all the witnesses to change their testimony after that case was closed? C'mon, now.

So you have no problem with questionable evidence and coerced testimony being used to convict a person?

Seven on the nine have recanted. One of the remaining two has been implicated....

Yeah. And oh, look. We all pointed at this guy. Now we're all pointing at this guy. Both get off without due punishment.

It's a nifty trick if you ask me. Because when the other guy goes up for the death penalty everyone will be saying, "Well HE got accused FIRST. How do we know HE didn't do it?"

The lawyer is almost certainly trying to scam the system.

You don't think that it's a little suspicious that the defendant's lawyer started snooping around and got all the witnesses to change their testimony after that case was closed? C'mon, now.

actually...no, not really suspicious at all. The more time that passes the more likely they are to recant, especially since that many of the witnesses say they lied due to police intimidation, which is obviously less applicable after the trial.

Likewise a guilty conscious, when the man you lied about is about to be executed, can do wonders for the truth to come out. I really don't see anything particularly suspicious about it. Moreover, that's a question as to the validity of the evidence that should be brought up, wait for it, at trial

The specific problem in THIS instance is it appears that the reliability of some of the evidence only fell into question AFTER the trial. It's less questioning the finding of the jury, and more questioning the evidence they used to make their finding.
Yeah, you're right to a point, and I was editing my post while you were responding. The thing is, the Supreme court seems to be arguing that while there is some change in evidence, the initial uncertainty in witness testimony cannot be used in support of the claim in favour of a retrial as a result of the point having already been made and the jury having already arbitrated on the back of it. In other words, you can't question the jury's verdict on what they've seen already.

If they'd accepted this appeal then the amount of uncertainty required in future would either be lessened or would somehow factor in previous arguments, which would still change the system considerably. While setting precedent is less of a concern than I'd originally thought were they to accept this request and appeal, they'd still be making it much easier for lawyers to appeal death penalty sentences.

actually...no, not really suspicious at all. The more time that passes the more likely they are to recant, especially since that many of the witnesses say they lied due to police intimidation, which is obviously less applicable after the trial.

Likewise a guilty conscious, when the man you lied about is about to be executed, can do wonders for the truth to come out. I really don't see anything particularly suspicious about it. Moreover, that's a question as to the validity of the evidence that should be brought up, wait for it, at trial

Again. All the legal authorities disagree with you. They see this as exactly what I am describing to you.

Lawyers put on a pretty show and lights to dazzle an audience and people want to fall for it. That's why he wants another chance in front of a trial jury. It has little to do with justice and more to do with who he can con.

Yeah. And oh, look. We all pointed at this guy. Now we're all pointing at this guy. Both get off without due punishment.

It's a nifty trick if you ask me. Because when the other guy goes up for the death penalty everyone will be saying, "Well HE got accused FIRST. How do we know HE didn't do it?"

The lawyer is almost certainly trying to scam the system.

So we ought to just execute the first person even though there is now considerable doubt as to his guilt?

So we ought to just execute the first person even though there is now considerable doubt as to his guilt?

There isn't considerable doubt. There is a slight doubt that the Supreme Court has deemed to be smoke and mirrors.

And yes. We should execute him.

Again. All the legal authorities disagree with you. They see this as exactly what I am describing to you.


Who is "all"? You? 4 of Georgia's 7 justices?


Thats not "all".

Lawyers put on a pretty show and lights to dazzle an audience and people want to fall for it. That's why he wants another chance in front of a trial jury. It has little to do with justice and more to do with who he can con.
If a Jury show-trial has no right to acquit him, then what right did it have to sentence him?

Who is "all"? You? 4 of Georgia's 7 justices?


Thats not "all".

It is when the Supreme Court is seen as an entity with one decision handed down.

Yeah. And oh, look. We all pointed at this guy. Now we're all pointing at this guy. Both get off without due punishment.


Ahh no. If it's tried again and it shows the man is innocent, he should be be released.

The other implicated fellow does not go free especially if there is strong evidence he was the true shooter.


It's a nifty trick if you ask me. Because when the other guy goes up for the death penalty everyone will be saying, "Well HE got accused FIRST. How do we know HE didn't do it?"


The fact that the seven recants claimed police intimidation brings the question if the convicted received a fair trial.

The lawyer is almost certainly trying to scam the system.

It seems the system is trying to scam the rights of a citizen.

There isn't considerable doubt. There is a slight doubt that the Supreme Court has deemed to be smoke and mirrors.

And yes. We should execute him.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. They offered no comment. To extrapolate their decision not to hear the case into "the Supreme Court has deemed [the "new" evidence] to be smoke and mirrors" is false.

Again. All the legal authorities disagree with you. They see this as exactly what I am describing to you.

Lawyers put on a pretty show and lights to dazzle an audience and people want to fall for it. That's why he wants another chance in front of a trial jury. It has little to do with justice and more to do with who he can con.I could have sworn that "all" means "all" and not "four out of seven".

You seem to let your hatred of lawyers get in the way of seeing the problem here.

And I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing how the fourteenth relates?

The Bill of Rights apply to the states, through incorporation under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23

If a Jury show-trial has no right to acquit him, then what right did it have to sentence him?

? What? This isn't a question of right. There was no validity to the claim. If there was, there would be a show-trial to acquit him.

It is when the Supreme Court is seen as an entity with one decision handed down.

Not in the sense you are painting it.

Not in the sense you are painting it.

Ok. You are now again attempting to play legal games. That's silly. There is a reason that a majority decides. That's just the way it goes. The Supreme Court passed down a singular decision. Now whether some of the people sitting the position voted against is irrelevant. The decision is the decision.

Ok. You are now again attempting to play legal games. That's silly. There is a reason that a majority decides. That's just the way it goes. The Supreme Court passed down a singular decision. Now whether some of the people sitting the position voted against is irrelevant. The decision is the decision.


It doesnt, however, mean that "all" legal authorities agreed with you.

Anyone else amussed that pointing out his incorrect logic = legal games?

Anyone else amussed that pointing out his incorrect logic = legal games?

Oh go ahead and have some fun! ;)

Interesting.

So the Jim Crow laws were valid?

Given that they were enforced by law, they were indeed, valid laws. Why? Does that make me a blatant racist or more capable of objectivity than the average American?

It doesnt, however, mean that "all" legal authorities agreed with you.
In a sense, all "relevant" legal authorities is probably what he means, and he would have a point there, in that the only relevant legal authority in this case is the State of Georgia itself (in whatever abstract sense the State of Georgia can be said to be a legal authority).

The question, I think, is not so much "did they act according to law in refusing to grant a hearing?" but "was it in the spirit of good lawmaking to not grant a hearing?". That totally reveals my disdain for legal framework, but I think it's the basis of what seems wrong with this ruling.

Given that they were enforced by law, they were indeed, valid laws. Why? Does that make me a blatant racist or more capable of objectivity than the average American?

Well I originally deleted this as I didn't want to detract from the discussion. I misread.

You are more objective? I would think coerced testimony would be a concern for you.

This is the sovereignty I was talking about.

That's not soveriegnty. Sovereignty has a specific meaning. That is not it.

What seems to be a little known fact of the Constitution is that anything not specifically spelled out to the federal government is a right of the state and/or people.
That is not a little known fact.

The federal government was never meant to be all powerful and making laws that control everyone to make us all alike. The states were supposed to individually decide how they wanted to live within the Constitution, of course.
Not "of course." The Constitution also states that all state law is subordiinate to federal law. Also, this question has nothing to do with the issue which is the topic of this thread.

Back to the subject at hand, the Supreme Court has oft weilded it's loose interpretation of the Constitution to go with what's politically popular at the moment and everyone cheers. Now we question when they do something unpopular like support *gasp* the death penalty.
Another "what the hell are you talking about?" moment.

Aye the death penalty is pish.

Given that they were enforced by law, they were indeed, valid laws. Why? Does that make me a blatant racist or more capable of objectivity than the average American?

So, which was "objectively" right: Plessy v. Ferguson (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/163/537.html), 163 U.S. 537 (1896), or Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=347&invol=483), 347 U.S. 483 (1954)?

My crim law professor once said, about a case that split 4-3 at the state supreme court level, "Does anyone else find a slight tinge of insult in a 4-3 decision holding that 'no reasonable person' could reach the opposite conclusion?" That is what it is happening here, too, when the majority says that there is no reasonable doubt.

My crim law professor once said, about a case that split 4-3 at the state supreme court level, "Does anyone else find a slight tinge of insult in a 4-3 decision holding that 'no reasonable person' could reach the opposite conclusion?" That is what it is happening here, too, when the majority says that there is no reasonable doubt.

Apparently three state supreme court judges are unreasonable. :p

So, which was "objectively" right: Plessy v. Ferguson (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/163/537.html), 163 U.S. 537 (1896), or Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=347&invol=483), 347 U.S. 483 (1954)?

Stop it with your legal games.

Which is why neither I nor the Georgia Supreme Court dissenters are saying that Davis should simply be released. Instead, there should be at least a hearing to determine whether Davis is entitled to a new trial. If Davis were granted a new trial, the previous testimony of these witnesses would be admissible and they could be cross-examined by the prosecution.



How does executing an innocent man help the victim? I would think that, to the extent a victim has an interest, it would be in seeing the right person punished.
Suppose the hearing does require a new trial...
The question that always strikes me in these cases where the only evidence is an eye-witness, is how good can the new trial be? I would think it is almost a gimme for the defense. Eye witnesses typically are terrible evidence --- at least they were when I was doing aviation accident investigations for the Marine Corps. I would think that a decently schooled defense attorney would be able to promote substantial reasonable doubt in any of the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution may be able to do the same, but it's his burden to prove, not to cause doubt...

The question that always strikes me in these cases where the only evidence is an eye-witness, is how good can the new trial be? I would think it is almost a gimme for the defense. Eye witnesses typically are terrible evidence --- at least they were when I was doing aviation accident investigations for the Marine Corps. I would think that a decently schooled defense attorney would be able to promote substantial reasonable doubt in any of the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution may be able to do the same, but it's his burden to prove, not to cause doubt...

The problem is that the trial is a popularity contest: Get more jurors behind your view and you win.

The problem is that the trial is a popularity contest: Get more jurors behind your view and you win.

Ohhhhhhhh so now I know how to make an unbeatable law firm. All my Lawyers will be beautiful and naked!

Not "of course." The Constitution also states that all state law is subordiinate to federal law. Also, this question has nothing to do with the issue which is the topic of this thread.


Another "what the hell are you talking about?" moment.

Yeah. I missed the bus on some of this stuff and realised too late. *hands flail*

Ohhhhhhhh so now I know how to make an unbeatable law firm. All my Lawyers will be beautiful and naked!
Well, show me an ugly, badly dressed lawyer/client pair who has won a jury case...Preferably with a lisp too :p

So the defendent/inmate in this case is black. Im somehow less suprised by the Georgia Supreme Court's decision now.

Suppose the hearing does require a new trial...
The question that always strikes me in these cases where the only evidence is an eye-witness, is how good can the new trial be? I would think it is almost a gimme for the defense. Eye witnesses typically are terrible evidence --- at least they were when I was doing aviation accident investigations for the Marine Corps. I would think that a decently schooled defense attorney would be able to promote substantial reasonable doubt in any of the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution may be able to do the same, but it's his burden to prove, not to cause doubt...If that's the case, then it shouldn't be. The justice system needs to first and foremost ensure that the innocent aren't wrongly punished. If there is considerable doubt as to the validity of the evidence used to sentence someone then they deserve another trial. If the evidence was sound, it should hold up a second time.

Well I originally deleted this as I didn't want to detract from the discussion. I misread.

You are more objective? I would think coerced testimony would be a concern for you.

It would. How can you prove which end was coerced? Was it the original testimony or the testimony to release? Obviously the courts think there is not much to validate rehashing.

We seem to love to slip deeper and deeper into the grey. I don't understand it. We're turning our legal system into mush. It's a game now to see if you can slip out of a crime. People go to court for a speeding ticket where the cop is present with the readout from the radar gun and they plead not guilty.

I happen to think that the Supreme Court might take a little more serious look at a case than you are currently wanting to give them credit for.

So, which was "objectively" right: Plessy v. Ferguson (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/163/537.html), 163 U.S. 537 (1896), or Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=347&invol=483), 347 U.S. 483 (1954)?

The outcome? The case? The person suing? Which side of the case would I have sided on?

My crim law professor once said, about a case that split 4-3 at the state supreme court level, "Does anyone else find a slight tinge of insult in a 4-3 decision holding that 'no reasonable person' could reach the opposite conclusion?" That is what it is happening here, too, when the majority says that there is no reasonable doubt.

Ok. Which 4-3 decisions would YOU like to overturn?

It would. How can you prove which end was coerced? Was it the original testimony or the testimony to release? Obviously the courts think there is not much to validate rehashing. They have this saying in Latin that gets used in court for situations like those: In dubio pro reo.
We seem to love to slip deeper and deeper into the grey. I don't understand it. We're turning our legal system into mush. It's a game now to see if you can slip out of a crime. People go to court for a speeding ticket where the cop is present with the readout from the radar gun and they plead not guilty.Better someone who's possibly innocent be executed than one guilty man get away?
I happen to think that the Supreme Court might take a little more serious look at a case than you are currently wanting to give them credit for.We think they didn't evaluate it based on whether he might be innocent or not but instead evaluated whether it was an issue for the Supreme Court or not.

So the defendent/inmate in this case is black. Im somehow less suprised by the Georgia Supreme Court's decision now.

Cheap shot.

Perhaps we would stop convicting as many black people of crimes if so many black people would be kind enough to stop breaking the law?

They have this saying in Latin that gets used in court for situations like those: In dubio pro reo.
Better someone who's possibly innocent be executed than one guilty man get away?
No one except him was saying he was innocent.


We think they didn't evaluate it based on whether he might be innocent or not but instead evaluated whether it was an issue for the Supreme Court or not.

Therefore the previous appeal is upheld, correct? This wasn't the guy's first time around the block with this case.

Cheap shot.

Perhaps we would stop convicting as many black people of crimes if so many black people would be kind enough to stop breaking the law?

Wow. Its not that simple and you know it. And if you dont, well your a racist.

And I stand by my statement. I find it unsuprising that the Supreme Court in a southern state like Georgia doesnt really care if a black man on death row is innocent.

Cheap shot.

Perhaps we would stop convicting as many black people of crimes if so many black people would be kind enough to stop breaking the law?

The conviction rate for blacks is statistically higher than it is for whites for equivalent crimes. They also statistically will receive harsher sentences than whites for equivalent crimes.

Cheap shot.

Perhaps we would stop convicting as many black people of crimes if so many black people would be kind enough to stop breaking the law?
Ah, you're one of those, as well as completely ignorant about how the legal system works, what the Constitution means, how states relate to the fed, and whether the topic matter has anything to do with state power.

That explains pretty much everything, thanks.

Cheap shot.

Perhaps we would stop convicting as many black people of crimes if so many black people would be kind enough to stop breaking the law?

Whoa.....

Have issues with black people?

I have been through Georgia and I would question the conviction especially with what is going on.

Even in politics there was a guy in Atlanta(at least I think he was there) who said "Well I'm a good ol' boy and I can't see a feller like that in the White House"

That is of course, you think Judges can't be racist or have prejudice......

Wow. Its not that simple and you know it. And if you dont, well your a racist.

And I stand by my statement. I find it unsuprising that the Supreme Court in a southern state like Georgia doesnt really care if a black man on death row is innocent.

Making statements like that clearly define the embodiment of a racist.

There are laws. Robbing people and running away from cops and then murdering them is against those laws.

Telling a man that he is not at fault for performing such actions because he is black will lead him to cause more of those actions. Telling him everyone is out to get him and that he has to be helped to climb out of his station will lead him to never move. Having his church leaders and politicians encourage him that he has a right to welfare and other social handouts will lead him to take them. Telling him that he will not be hired will lead him to never try to look for a job.

Now. Tell him that he can do anything any white man can regardless of the obstacles in front of him will cause him to push through said obstacles. Telling him that he is intelligient and capable of making right decisions and that they are responsible for their own actions will cause him to re-evaluate his reasoning. Telling him being black and poor is nothing to be ashamed of will alleviate his anger.

There have to be laws and there have to be rules and arguing that someone is put in jail because he is black just makes him see that there is no reason to try to better himself. He's going to get in trouble no matter what so why not have some fun at it.

I do know that cops pull over black people constantly to search them for drugs. I happen to live in South Georgia, in fact and I have gotten pulled over for dropping people off in black neighborhoods after dark. It pisses me off to no end that people are treated that way. However, if cops weren't finding drugs constantly in these vehicles, they would stop. And if it wasn't legally allowed, I'm sure someone at the ACLU or the NAACP would put a stop to it.

Do innocent people get convicted? Sometimes. Is it based on race? I'm sure, although I doubt it happens as often as tv dramas want you to believe.

So please stop playing the race card and insulting our intelligience.

Cheap shot.

Perhaps we would stop convicting as many black people of crimes if so many black people would be kind enough to stop breaking the law?

And now we see your colours. Lovely.

On the OP topic, I am completely horrified that anyone would argue that witnesses recanting eyewitness testimony is not grounds for a new trial. Regardless of the strictest legal interpretation, surely the intent of any law is to protect innocent citizens from being unfairly convicted.

Making statements like that clearly define the embodiment of a racist.


Yep, when you look at the facts:

The conviction rate for blacks is statistically higher than it is for whites for equivalent crimes. They also statistically will receive harsher sentences than whites for equivalent crimes.

So, was your prior comment ignorant or racist?

Making statements like that clearly define the embodiment of a racist.


Eh? So how is KoL a racist?

There are laws. Robbing people and running away from cops and then murdering them is against those laws.


Yes but the events of this case suggest this guy didn't get a proper trial....

Telling a man that he is not at fault for performing such actions because he is black will lead him to cause more of those actions.

WTF are you talking about?

Telling him everyone is out to get him and that he has to be helped to climb out of his station will lead him to never move.

WTF are you talking about?

Having his church leaders and politicians encourage him that he has a right to welfare and other social handouts will lead him to take them.

WTF are you talking about?

Telling him that he will not be hired will lead him to never try to look for a job.

WTF are you talking about?

Now. Tell him that he can do anything any white man can regardless of the obstacles in front of him will cause him to push through said obstacles. Telling him that he is intelligient and capable of making right decisions and that they are responsible for their own actions will cause him to re-evaluate his reasoning. Telling him being black and poor is nothing to be ashamed of will alleviate his anger.

WTF are you talking about?

There have to be laws and there have to be rules and arguing that someone is put in jail because he is black just makes him see that there is no reason to try to better himself. He's going to get in trouble no matter what so why not have some fun at it.

WTF are you talking about?

I do know that cops pull over black people constantly to search them for drugs.

Yes. We have that as well. It's called driving while black.

I happen to live in South Georgia,

Ahhh as I suspected.

in fact and I have gotten pulled over for dropping people off in black neighborhoods after dark. It pisses me off to no end that people are treated that way.

Don't you mean that it pisses you off that you were pulled over?

However, if cops weren't finding drugs constantly in these vehicles, they would stop.

You never looked into this have you?

And if it wasn't legally allowed, I'm sure someone at the ACLU or the NAACP would put a stop to it.

Didn't you forget the liberal media?

Do innocent people get convicted? Sometimes. Is it based on race? I'm sure, although I doubt it happens as often as tv dramas want you to believe.


So we shouldn't verify this guy got a proper trial?

So please stop playing the race card and insulting our intelligience.

So, was your prior comment ignorant or racist?

Um. Still correct.

Um. Still correct.

Ok, racist. Thank you.

This makes me wonder why we have a Constitution. :(

Ok, racist. Thank you.

My vote is on option C: both.

My vote is on option C: both.

IMO A implies B.

Yes but the events of this case suggest this guy didn't get a proper trial....

*sighs* You're probably right.


WTF are you talking about? (etc.)

If you want to fix the problems of black people you cannot do it by just fixing white people. That's WTF I am talking about. When you are committing crimes, expect to be punished.


Don't you mean that it pisses you off that you were pulled over?

Given that I am white and living in Georgia and think that most people get arrested primarily because they are suspected of a crime, it must be so.

But no. That's not the case.



You never looked into this have you?

Nope. I sit on my porch swing, drinking my sweet tea and wonder why that dammable Negro won't keep picking my cotton.


Didn't you forget the liberal media?

Not at all. Wasn't a useful source of change.

So we shouldn't verify this guy got a proper trial?
"We"? I thought that was the job of the courts?

This makes me wonder why we have a Constitution. :(

I hear it makes good toilet paper for the Imperial President.

So, which was "objectively" right: Plessy v. Ferguson (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/163/537.html), 163 U.S. 537 (1896), or Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=347&invol=483), 347 U.S. 483 (1954)?

The outcome? The case? The person suing? Which side of the case would I have sided on?

I think the question was clear. Which decision was objectively correct, Plessy or Brown?

Suppose the hearing does require a new trial...
The question that always strikes me in these cases where the only evidence is an eye-witness, is how good can the new trial be? I would think it is almost a gimme for the defense. Eye witnesses typically are terrible evidence --- at least they were when I was doing aviation accident investigations for the Marine Corps. I would think that a decently schooled defense attorney would be able to promote substantial reasonable doubt in any of the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution may be able to do the same, but it's his burden to prove, not to cause doubt...

Let's see if I follow your logic: we shouldn't have a new trial because the witness that were relied on in the first trial would be terrible evidence. :eek:

*sighs* You're probably right.


If you want to fix the problems of black people you cannot do it by just fixing white people. That's WTF I am talking about. When you are committing crimes, expect to be punished.


Given that I am white and living in Georgia and think that most people get arrested primarily because they are suspected of a crime, it must be so.

But no. That's not the case.



Nope. I sit on my porch swing, drinking my sweet tea and wonder why that dammable Negro won't keep picking my cotton.


Not at all. Wasn't a useful source of change.


"We"? I thought that was the job of the courts?

So are you just a troll? After all that?

I think the question was clear. Which decision was objectively correct, Plessy or Brown?

I think it is as well, but I'm still asking. Is this a moral question or a legal question?

I think it is as well, but I'm still asking. Is this a moral question or a legal question?

Depends, what did you mean by "objectivity" and "valid laws" -- did you mean those terms morally or legally?

Hell, answer it as to both moral and legal concerns.

I think it is as well, but I'm still asking. Is this a moral question or a legal question?

What my esteemed colleague The Cat Tribe is asking is if you hold to the position you outlined earlier that court decisions should not be overturned by courts at a later date even if a flaw was found in the original.

When you are committing crimes, expect to be punished.


Rather begs the question of whether the defendant committed the crime, doesn't it? Isn't that the very issue here?

Rather begs the question of whether the defendant committed the crime, doesn't it? Isn't that the very issue here?

Thats easy. Darkies, guilty. Whites, innocent.

I hear it makes good toilet paper for the Imperial President.Wonderful.

What my esteemed colleague The Cat Tribe is asking is if you hold to the position you outlined earlier that court decisions should not be overturned by courts at a later date even if a flaw was found in the original.

I didn't say that at all. What I said was that the Supreme Court of the United States turned it down as a matter of course and the previous courts determined a retrial was not needed. If they had decided otherwise, then they would have proceeded with a retrial which would have likely led to the lawyer dancing around and getting what he wanted out of a well played jury. And I do not believe justice would have been served but we would have had to live with that.

Cat-Tribe:

Legally, it seems a kind of pointless question. After the final decision was made, the decisions, given no other appeal, were final.

Morally, I do not believe that it is right to treat someone the way Plessy was treated, regardless of if he had been as black as the ace of spades.
As far as having segregated schools, I don't really see a moral issue with segregated schools, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Either way, I'm not morally opposed to segregated schools, either.

Rather begs the question of whether the defendant committed the crime, doesn't it? Isn't that the very issue here?

No. It's not. I think the question is who pulled the trigger and in my humble opinion, they should both hang.

No. It's not. I think the question is who pulled the trigger and in my humble opinion, they should both hang.

So, he should hang whether he did it or not?

I didn't say that at all. What I said was that the Supreme Court of the United States turned it down as a matter of course and the previous courts determined a retrial was not needed. If they had decided otherwise, then they would have proceeded with a retrial which would have likely led to the lawyer dancing around and getting what he wanted out of a well played jury. And I do not believe justice would have been served but we would have had to live with that.

Funny how you would see a retrial as an opportunity for legal hijinks, but not the original trial or the appeals.


Legally, it seems a kind of pointless question. After the final decision was made, the decisions, given no other appeal, were final.

Um. But Plessy wasn't the final word. As evidenced by Brown.

See, prior decisions should be given weight, but they can be overturned.

Morally, I do not believe that it is right to treat someone the way Plessy was treated, regardless of if he had been as black as the ace of spades. As far as having segregated schools, I don't really see a moral issue with segregated schools, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Either way, I'm not morally opposed to segregated schools, either.

Well, that explains a lot. :(

EDIT: When you are doing your reading on the Due Process Clause, you might want to take a gander at the Equal Protection Clause.

Funny how you would see a retrial as an opportunity for legal hijinks, but not the original trial or the appeals.



Um. But Plessy wasn't the final word. As evidenced by Brown.

See, prior decisions should be given weight, but they can be overturned.

Well, that explains a lot. :(


Yes. I do see the future trial as most likely to be tampered with.

I was answering the questions as in when they are given. I understand that laws change. I also understand that social belief has a lot to do with that. So as we changed our belief that blacks were a lesser race, the laws changed. It doesn't make them any less of a law at the time.

*shrugs* You asked me from a moral standpoint.

Yes. I do see the future trial as most likely to be tampered with.

I was answering the questions as in when they are given. I understand that laws change. I also understand that social belief has a lot to do with that. So as we changed our belief that blacks were a lesser race, the laws changed. It doesn't make them any less of a law at the time.

*shrugs* You asked me from a moral standpoint.

you mean the words on the constitution changed from one point to another?

The guy shouldn't have gotten the death penalty to begin with. There was no hard evidence to prove his guilt. The only thing linking him to the fatal shooting of the police officer was eye-witness accounts-- which are notoriously unreliable. Basically, the only evidence the prosecution had against this guy is gone. If a lawyer were to re-examine physical evidence of a crime and find that something was over-looked, or misinterpreted, then a new trial would be in order. I don't see why it should be any different in this case, especially since the evidence was so shaky to begin with.

Even if he is guilty, the punishment really doesn't fit the crime. The officer was merely shot-- not tortured, or raped, or killed in some heinous fashion.

That's the problem with those of you who say that 'Well, he committed the crime and should just accept the punishment". That only works if the punishment is the same for the same crime. Disproportionally, black people are given the death penalty for murder, while white people are more likely to get life or time in jail. How is that fair and just?

The guy shouldn't have gotten the death penalty to begin with. There was no hard evidence to prove his guilt. The only thing linking him to the fatal shooting of the police officer was eye-witness accounts-- which are notoriously unreliable. Basically, the only evidence the prosecution had against this guy is gone. If a lawyer were to re-examine physical evidence of a crime and find that something was over-looked, or misinterpreted, then a new trial would be in order. I don't see why it should be any different in this case, especially since the evidence was so shaky to begin with.

Even if he is guilty, the punishment really doesn't fit the crime. The officer was merely shot-- not tortured, or raped, or killed in some heinous fashion.

That's the problem with those of you who say that 'Well, he committed the crime and should just accept the punishment". That only works if the punishment is the same for the same crime. Disproportionally, black people are given the death penalty for murder, while white people are more likely to get life or time in jail. How is that fair and just?

A police officer was killed. That usually makes people howl for blood. The accused also happened to be a black man and it took place in the deep south.

Thats why he got the death penalty.

you mean the words on the constitution changed from one point to another?

Yes. It's called an ammendment...

A police officer was killed. That usually makes people howl for blood.

Yeah, that's something I've never understood either. Why is a police officer's life worth more? I mean, they are the ones who chose to be police officers. It's a risk they obviously accepted, one that the average murdered Joe did not ask for.

Yeah, that's something I've never understood either. Why is a police officer's life worth more? I mean, they are the ones who chose to be police officers. It's a risk they obviously accepted, one that the average murdered Joe did not ask for.

Because they are a representative of the state, an authority figure. An attack on a police officer is an attack on the government itself.

A police officer was killed. That usually makes people howl for blood. The accused also happened to be a black man and it took place in the deep south.

Thats why he got the death penalty.What do you define as the deep south? No, there aren't any ulterior motives in this question. I just want to know what states you consider to be the "deep south".

Yes. It's called an ammendment...

the sound you hear is the point whizzing RIGHT over your head. Plessy was decided in 1896. Since then we have had 12 amendments to the constitution, which dealt with: income tax, election of senators, prohibition, women's suffrage, presidential succession, repeal of prohibition, presidential term limits, electoral votes for D.C., outlawing poll tax, presidential succession, lowering voting age to 18, and the process of raising congressional pay.

Which of those 12 altered the constitution in such a way that invalidated the ruling in Plessy and validated the ruling in Brown?

I'll give you a hint, none of them.

And it's called an "amendment"

the sound you hear is the point whizzing RIGHT over your head. Plessy was decided in 1896. Since then we have had 12 amendments to the constitution, which dealt with: income tax, election of senators, prohibition, women's suffrage, presidential succession, repeal of prohibition, presidential term limits, electoral votes for D.C., outlawing poll tax, presidential succession, lowering voting age to 18, and the process of raising congressional pay.

Which of those 12 altered the constitution in such a way that invalidated the ruling in Plessy and validated the ruling in Brown?

I'll give you a hint, none of them.

There's that sound again because I'm still not getting your point. I believe I already made clear that I think popular opinion/thought sways courts. The courts' decisions have from time to time changed from one generation to the next. Big deal. That doesn't mean that the decision wasn't both legal and valid at time of issue. You cannot just disregard the law because we changed our minds.

EDIT:
Almost forgot to thank you for the spellcheck. Here's your cookie.

There's that sound again because I'm still not getting your point. I believe I already made clear that I think popular opinion/thought sways courts. The courts' decisions have from time to time changed from one generation to the next. Big deal. That doesn't mean that the decision wasn't both legal and valid at time of issue. You cannot just disregard the law because we changed our minds.

Plessy and Brown were both rulings on the 14th amendment, yet they reached opposite conclusions. Only one of them could be right. That's the point. Plessy might have been the "legal" opinion, that doesn't mean it was the correct one.

Well in America, as I am sure you are well aware Gauntleted Fist, Georgia is generally considered part of the Deep South geographically and culturally. I would say GA, Mississippi, AL, LA, E. TX, FL, and maybe parts of AR would make up the Deep South region.

Btw, I do support the death penalty but I also consider this particular case to be a miscarriage of justice. What I do not get is why we are more apt to release rapists than murderers. If I were a judge there would be a lot more rapists on death row and possibly fewer murderers- depending on the circumstances of the respective crimes. I would strongly encourage the Georgian criminal justice system to reconsider this case and to start a new trial. If Davis is found not guilty, find out who is, and have him/her executed.

Plessy and Brown were both rulings on the 14th amendment, yet they reached opposite conclusions. Only one of them could be right. That's the point. Plessy might have been the "legal" opinion, that doesn't mean it was the correct one.

Unless you are prepared to establish some superior moral standard, my friend, you are wrong.

Btw, I do support the death penalty but I also consider this particular case to be a miscarriage of justice. What I do not get is why we are more apt to release rapists than murderers. If I were a judge there would be a lot more rapists on death row and possibly fewer murderers- depending on the circumstances of the respective crimes. I would strongly encourage the Georgian criminal justice system to reconsider this case and to start a new trial. If Davis is found not guilty, find out who is, and have him/her executed.

You'd never get that past the ACLU and would likely end up with a completely abolished death penalty due to "cruel and unusual" punishment.

That last part, well, if the jury decides life imprisonment instead for the REAL murderer, I would be happy about it too, at least justice is served.

I happened to notice, with great dismay, that the "race card" has been played. I consider that to be the lowest tactic for those on my side of the fence politically to employ. Let us look at a few cases where race was brought up:
Duke University La Crosse team: something illegal probably did happen, further investigation should have done for the WHOLE team plus any friends they may have invited to the house party. WTF, Strippers and alcohol to celebrate a college victory... stupid, STUpid, STUPID!!!

Jena 6: Those gentlemen are guilty as can be, unless you can tell me of six other HS students in Jena, that go to the same HS) that fit the video tape. As for the racial incidents that started things (ie nooses in the tree, or whatever), find out the punks who did it and lock 'em up for inciting a riot.

Police Brutality and Corruption (general): To all those idiots who think they are above the law just because they wear a shiny pin: Nemo super legem est! (my latin is rusty, but I'm trying to say noone's above the law). If anything, the only way cops are above the law is that, as respected members of the community, people that others look up to as their duty is to keep the community safe, are obligated to follow a higher standard than the letter of the law. They must also embody the spirit of the community and that of the laws which were instituted by the community. They must, by virtue of their actions alone, be above reproach for the police chose to be civil servants. This is an important concept, it means they dedicated their lives to a life of servitude to all of the citizens who rely upon them, and those with power in the US must never forget their servant-leadership role in American society.

The Wolf came in, I got my cards, we sat down for a game
I cut my deck to the queen of spades, but the cards were all the same
Don't murder me...
I beg of you don't murder me
Pleeeease don't murder me

No matter one's views on the death penalty, I feel as though this has to be offensive. If the witnesses changed their testimony, the man deserves a retrial. Before I get deeper into an argument, allow me to say that I understand the need for retrials to be disallowed in some cases, to prevent those who are truly guilty from scamming the Justice System with an endless stream of appeals. This would prevent justice from being done, and undermine the purpose of the American justice system. Still, in an obviously exceptional case like this, normal procedure cannot apply. If the witnesses have rescinded their testimony, and are prepared to give new testimony at a retrial, who are we to send a man to die without all of the facts? There is something wrong when the process of justice gets in the way of justice being done. It has been said that it is better that a thousand guilty men walk free than that one innocent man go to the gallows. I believe that the American Justice System should work with this in mind.

Unless you are prepared to establish some superior moral standard, my friend, you are wrong.

so it is your contention that Plessy was the proper decision and Brown was wrong?

so it is your contention that Plessy was the proper decision and Brown was wrong?

I think I already explained my position on both cases.

Are you implying some higher moral code we all need to adhere to?

I think I already explained my position on both cases.

Are you implying some higher moral code we all need to adhere to?

Most of us here on NSG prefer not to be complete douchebags to people of colour, but that's just us silly jewcommies. :rolleyes:

I think I already explained my position on both cases.

Are you implying some higher moral code we all need to adhere to?

Why can't you answer a simple question. Both cases were decided under the 14th amendment. Both were opposite interpretations of the same law. They both can not be right. Since they're both interpretations of the same text, yet they reach opposite conclusions, if one is right, the other must be wrong. A coin can either be heads or tails, it can not be both. the 14th amendment either allows for "separate but equal" or it does not.

So which is it? Which was legally the correct decision, Plessy or Brown?

Why can't you answer a simple question. Both cases were decided under the 14th amendment. Both were opposite interpretations of the same law. They both can not be right. Since they're both interpretations of the same text, yet they reach opposite conclusions, if one is right, the other must be wrong. A coin can either be heads or tails, it can not be both. the 14th amendment either allows for "separate but equal" or it does not.

So which is it? Which was legally the correct decision, Plessy or Brown?

I already answered the question: Both. There is no either or. They were both decided partially based on public opinion and current social thought. They were both legal decisions. They both changed law as we know it. They were both right. Suck it up and deal with it. Laws change.

Most of us here on NSG prefer not to be complete douchebags to people of colour, but that's just us silly jewcommies. :rolleyes:

That's good. I'll accept that not complete douchebaggedness, me being a person of colour...a soft, well tanned brown.

Are most of the people on NSG really jewcommies?

I already answered the question: Both. There is no either or. They were both decided partially based on public opinion and current social thought. They were both legal decisions. They both changed law as we know it. They were both right. Suck it up and deal with it. Laws change.

And with this, it's clear we can reject pretty much everything you have to say about the constitution as the rantings of the ignorant.

And with this, it's clear we can reject pretty much everything you have to say about the constitution as the rantings of the ignorant.

In that case, I hope you sleep better tonight.

I personally think if he was convicted then without a shadow of a doubt, they should have frog marched him out the courthouse and summarily shot him at point blank range right in the courthouse yard. End it right there. if there was a shadow of a doubt, they shouldn't have imposed capital punishment. I've always been in favor of the death penalty as I don't know about any other tax paying Americans, but I'm damn tired of paying for a gob of criminals to have a roof over their heads and the ability to still work for their stuff. If they're guilty of violent crime, blow their god-forsaken heads off and be DONE with it!

That's good. I'll accept that not complete douchebaggedness, me being a person of colour...a soft, well tanned brown.

Are most of the people on NSG really jewcommies?

Last time I polled the populous, 40 percent self-defined as some form of socialist, and another 30 percent self-defined as social democrat/American liberal.

Last time I polled the populous, 40 percent self-defined as some form of socialist, and another 30 percent self-defined as social democrat/American liberal.

Oh. Your previous comment led me to believe otherwise.:D

The legally correct argument was Plessy. Nothing about separate but equal is, from a legal standpoint, in opposition to the 14th amendment. From a completely objective perspective, the decision of the court to support act 111 is completely constitutional. Brown, however, is correct in stating that this becomes inherently racist, so in order for 'separate but equal' to hold up under the constitution, a few things must be applied

1)-Supervision of all separate facilities by government agencies, with regular inspection and observation to make sure they are truly equal.

2)-Harsh government sanctions and/or prosecution of those who do not follow these rules.

Seeing as these would be a patently ridiculous waste of time, effort, and taxpayer money, integration is right from both a practical and moral standpoint, and, seeing as neither segregation or integration is intrinsically legally correct (forced integration is where it becomes less so), integration should be the prevailing doctrine anyway. These are not my opinions, but conclusions I have drawn based on my best attempt at unbiased analysis of the law.

Is there any site that I can use to get a definite detailed poll breakdown?
I've seen some polls that have Obama leading at six percent, and others that have him leading at twenty-four percent.
Let me re-phrase. Anybody know of a site that collects data on all the polls and gets the mean of them?

Oh. Your previous comment led me to believe otherwise.:D

I'm a deadpan snarker. I can't help it. :p

Is there any site that I can use to get a definite detailed poll breakdown?
I've seen some polls that have Obama leading at six percent, and others that have him leading at twenty-four percent.
Let me re-phrase. Anybody know of a site that collects data on all the polls and gets the mean of them?

what poll do you see where he's leading by 24%? that's DOUBLE the BIGGEST lead he has right now in any poll.

The legally correct argument was Plessy. Nothing about separate but equal is, from a legal standpoint, in opposition to the 14th amendment. From a completely objective perspective, the decision of the court to support act 111 is completely constitutional. Brown, however, is correct in stating that this becomes inherently racist, so in order for 'separate but equal' to hold up under the constitution, a few things must be applied

1)-Supervision of all separate facilities by government agencies, with regular inspection and observation to make sure they are truly equal.

2)-Harsh government sanctions and/or prosecution of those who do not follow these rules.

Seeing as these would be a patently ridiculous waste of time, effort, and taxpayer money, integration is right from both a practical and moral standpoint, and, seeing as neither segregation or integration is intrinsically legally correct (forced integration is where it becomes less so), integration should be the prevailing doctrine anyway. These are not my opinions, but conclusions I have drawn based on my best attempt at unbiased analysis of the law.

I'm sorry. So both of these rulings were enforced?

what poll do you see where he's leading by 24%? that's DOUBLE the BIGGEST lead he has right now in any poll.Hm...let me check....
Oh, my mistake. The poll wasn't related to the actual election. It had something to do with the satisfaction level of Obama rejecting Clinton or something completely unrelated to the topic. Ugh, note to self, double check facts. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I'm sorry. So both of these rulings were enforced?

Not both were enforced, but the logical execution of one is so ridiculous that it leads to the conclusions of the other, without the need to declare a new law. (Plessy was technically correct, but implementation was impossible, so integration, which in and of itself is not against any law, was the logical solution, with or without Brown. Whether Brown was necessary in the time and place in which it was enacted is a completely different argument)

And with this, it's clear we can reject pretty much everything you have to say about the constitution as the rantings of the ignorant.

You gave him a longer chance to redeem himself than I did.

what poll do you see where he's leading by 24%? that's DOUBLE the BIGGEST lead he has right now in any poll.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1452124920081015


This one says 14% and even I think thats a little high.

I'm sorry. So both of these rulings were enforced?

Um, yeah. Plessy v. Ferguson (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/163/537.html), 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was the law of land regarding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment until Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=347&invol=483), 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

If you don't want to read the cases, here are the Oyez summaries of Plessy (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1895/1895_210/) and Brown (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1952/1952_1/).

Although I appreciate the contribution of Myedvedeya, I beg to differ on a couple of points. Separate but equal was always a fiction used to justify segregation despite the 14th Amendment. Brown corrected this injustice by finding that separate was inherently unequal.

Further cases for thought by Babylonious:

Lawrence v. Texas (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102), 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Bowers v. Hardwick (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=478&invol=186), 478 U.S. 186 (1986)

Oyez summaries: Bowers (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_140/), Lawrence (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_102/)

Note: Lawrence directly overturns Bowers.

Which of these cases is "good law," "valid law," or "moral law"?

Let's see if I follow your logic: we shouldn't have a new trial because the witness that were relied on in the first trial would be terrible evidence. :eek:
I like the way you sidestep the question... It was certainly a consideration of the GA SC in the Davis decision, as well as the USSC in the Herrera vs Collins case that you cited earlier.

You certainly don't agree with the decisions, but the question is valid. Witnesses generally suck when their memory is fresh. How can accurate facts be drawn out twenty years after the fact? The other question that arises in both these decisions is that recanting witnesses are typically less reliable.

Did Davis deserve the death penalty at the original trial? Probably not -- too much doubt. If he could have hired Johnny Cochran, things would have been different.

Did he deserve a hearing to determine the value of the evidence that he had collected? Maybe. I would lean toward yes, but I don't know all of what the GA court had available to reach their decision.

Should the Governor do something? Hell yes, and I've called him to tell him so. I only talked to a switchboard operator, so my efforts may or may not reach Sonny's ears. Is this anything but an academic exercise to you?

Should the Governor do something? Hell yes, and I've called him to tell him so. I only talked to a switchboard operator, so my efforts may or may not reach Sonny's ears. Is this anything but an academic exercise to you?

If you at all manage to save this man's life through your actions, Myrmi, my respect for you will grow quite a lot.

Not that it means anything, but had to be said. Also, I'll owe you a free English-Portuguese/Portuguese-English translation, up to 10 pages.

That doesn't mean anything either, does it? :p

I partially agree with you, but I find the idea that a defendant's actual innocence isn't relevant to due process rather disturbing.

EDIT: In other words, I think this case illustrates the impact of Herrera v. Collins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=506&page=390), 506 U.S. 390 (1993), in which a majority held it didn't violate the Constitution to execute someone that was actually innocent. I think that is scary.
I'm surprised that you're the OP of this thread. I entirely agree with you, I'm just surprised that you would be disturbed by this case. When's the last time a defendant's actual innocence was relevant to due process in a death penalty appeal? (Not being hyperbolic, either.)

If you at all manage to save this man's life through your actions, Myrmi, my respect for you will grow quite a lot.

Not that it means anything, but had to be said. Also, I'll owe you a free English-Portuguese/Portuguese-English translation, up to 10 pages.

That doesn't mean anything either, does it? :p

Thanks, but I can already ask for beer... and Cachaca. Along with several other short and simple words that I save to make a point. And taxicab phrases... I end up in Brazil a couple times every year, or so.

Thanks, but I can already ask for beer... and Cachaca. Along with several other short and simple words that I save to make a point. And taxicab phrases... I end up in Brazil a couple times every year, or so.

I know, you told me once of your trip to Mato Grosso.

A simpler word for "Cachaça" is "Pinga" (Pronounced Peen-gah) if you need, BTW. ;)

People are actually shocked by this? I'd say it's the natural outcome of a Supreme Court that has been made heavily conservative by this administration. Tradition triumphs over Ideals.

Is there any site that I can use to get a definite detailed poll breakdown?
I've seen some polls that have Obama leading at six percent, and others that have him leading at twenty-four percent.
Let me re-phrase. Anybody know of a site that collects data on all the polls and gets the mean of them?Haven't you been to 538 (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) yet?

I know, you told me once of your trip to Mato Grosso.

A simpler word for "Cachaça" is "Pinga" (Pronounced Peen-gah) if you need, BTW. ;)
Mainly Cuiaba and Cachoeira Paulista to work on antennas. I do see Sao Jose dos Campos when I just make visits to INPE.

I'll remember Pinga... I'm sure I heard it, but by that time, I'd had enough Cachaça and my associative ability was diminished. Along with my motor skills, I'd add.

I like the way you sidestep the question... It was certainly a consideration of the GA SC in the Davis decision, as well as the USSC in the Herrera vs Collins case that you cited earlier.

You certainly don't agree with the decisions, but the question is valid. Witnesses generally suck when their memory is fresh. How can accurate facts be drawn out twenty years after the fact? The other question that arises in both these decisions is that recanting witnesses are typically less reliable.

Did Davis deserve the death penalty at the original trial? Probably not -- too much doubt. If he could have hired Johnny Cochran, things would have been different.

Did he deserve a hearing to determine the value of the evidence that he had collected? Maybe. I would lean toward yes, but I don't know all of what the GA court had available to reach their decision.

Should the Governor do something? Hell yes, and I've called him to tell him so. I only talked to a switchboard operator, so my efforts may or may not reach Sonny's ears. Is this anything but an academic exercise to you?

1. I don't think I side-stepped the question at all.

2. You are right that there is some concern that witnesses may be less reliable in a retrial than the were in the initial trial. Faced with a situation such as this one, where almost all of the original witness now say they lied in the first trial, that concern seems a bit academic.

3. The GA court explained in detail what evidence was before him and why they rejected it as insufficient. I agree with the dissent that they were wrong in their analysis of that evidence AND that they were applying an impossibly high standard for a new trial.

4. As a matter of fact, per instructions from Amnesty Int'l, I have written the Georgia Board of Pardon and Paroles about reconsidering Mr. Davis's request for clemency.

5. We agree it is shocking that Davis was convicted in the first place. No doubt if he had been able to afford better representation this wouldn't have happened. BTW, for those playing at home, I like this summary of the Troy Davis case:


There was no physical evidence against Troy Davis.


The weapon used was never found.


The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony.


7 of the 9 non-police witnesses have recanted or contradicted their testimony.


Many of these witnesses have stated that they were pressured or coerced by the police. One of the witnesses who has not recanted is the principle alternative suspect.


Nine individuals have signed affadavits implicating this suspect as the actual shooter.


Troy Davis has never had a hearing in federal court on the reliability of the witness testimony used against him.

Mainly Cuiaba and Cachoeira Paulista to work on antennas. I do see Sao Jose dos Campos when I just make visits to INPE.

I'll remember Pinga... I'm sure I heard it, but by that time, I'd had enough Cachaça and my associative ability was diminished. Along with my motor skills, I'd add.

Hey, if you work on construction, you may end up actually reading this text I'm translating - NBR 6118, a concrete/construction standard. :)

I'm surprised that you're the OP of this thread. I entirely agree with you, I'm just surprised that you would be disturbed by this case.

I'm surprised my OP surprises you, but I am glad it is a pleasant surprise. :wink:

When's the last time a defendant's actual innocence was relevant to due process in a death penalty appeal? (Not being hyperbolic, either.)

Boy, I'm not sure I can answer that and I apologize in advance for getting lawyer on you. Habeas rules are very complicated. State habeas corpus rules vary by state and some states do recognize actual innocence. And I may have overstated things abit about the federal rules.

Assertions of actual innocence are categorized either as Herrera-type claims or Schlup-type claims. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298(1995). A Herrera type claim involves a substantive claim in which the applicant asserts a bare claim of innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 314. A Schlup-type claim, on the other hand, is a procedural claim in which the applicant's claim of innocence does not alone provide a basis for relief but is tied to a showing of constitutional error at trial. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 314. Thus, it is not entirely correct to say that a claim of innocence is completely irrelevant. Also, depending on how you read Herrera, the Court arguably left open the possibility that executing a prisoner might be unconstitutional if he made a "truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence." The Court stated that federal habeas corpus relief might be appropriate if there were no other avenues open for the claim but the threshold for such a right would be "extraordinarily high."

(Note, some of the above is paraphrased from this source (www.sualaw.com/papers/Freeing_the_Innocent.pdf) (pdf)).

Unfortunately, SCOTUS left us with no opinions in this case, so we can't know how or if the Herrera rule may have been applied. What we do know is that a man with a pretty persuasive set of new evidence of his innocence is very likely to be executed without even a hearing about that new evidence.

Boy, I'm not sure I can answer that and I apologize in advance for getting lawyer on you. Habeas rules are very complicated. State habeas corpus rules vary by state and some states do recognize actual innocence. And I may have overstated things abit about the federal rules.

Assertions of actual innocence are categorized either as Herrera-type claims or Schlup-type claims. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298(1995). A Herrera type claim involves a substantive claim in which the applicant asserts a bare claim of innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 314. A Schlup-type claim, on the other hand, is a procedural claim in which the applicant's claim of innocence does not alone provide a basis for relief but is tied to a showing of constitutional error at trial. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 314. Thus, it is not entirely correct to say that a claim of innocence is completely irrelevant. Also, depending on how you read Herrera, the Court arguably left open the possibility that executing a prisoner might be unconstitutional if he made a "truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence." The Court stated that federal habeas corpus relief might be appropriate if there were no other avenues open for the claim but the threshold for such a right would be "extraordinarily high."

(Note, some of the above is paraphrased from this source (www.sualaw.com/papers/Freeing_the_Innocent.pdf) (pdf)).

Unfortunately, SCOTUS left us with no opinions in this case, so we can't know how or if the Herrera rule may have been applied. What we do know is that a man with a pretty persuasive set of new evidence of his innocence is very likely to be executed without even a hearing about that new evidence.

A claim of innocence may not be completely irrelevant but its denial sure seems to be the running motif of countless denied death penalty appeals. Then again, maybe it's just that it sticks out in my mind most out of the many outrageous facets of the US capital punishment system. But still - the surprise I expressed at your shock and dismay about this case is due to the fact that just about every other DP case we read about in the news seems to be about new evidence speaking to the defendant's innocence not being admitted because of, oh, say, time elapsed. Granted, we mainly hear about the most controversial cases in the first place and they're usually controversial for that very reason, but that still makes this case merely one of many similar ones.

4. As a matter of fact, per instructions from Amnesty Int'l, I have written the Georgia Board of Pardon and Paroles about reconsidering Mr. Davis's request for clemency.

Troy Davis has never had a hearing in federal court on the reliability of the witness testimony used against him.

Looks like Amnesty International may be the last chance. Perdue responds well to political pressure, but he doesn't seem to have any real authority, here. I've sent my letter, too.

Why should Davis get a hearing in Federal court? Weren't these state charges?

Why should Davis get a hearing in Federal court? Weren't these state charges?

You are correct that that point is slightly off. Although Davis has a federal right to habeas corpus, he has actually been denied a hearing at either the state or federal level. A state court hearing would probably be adequate to satisfy that due process is actually done in this case.

EDIT: I think what they were getting at in that point was that, although he has recieved a direct appeal of the fairness of his original trial, no hearing was conducted on the federal level of that question. But that is neither here nor there regarding the lack of any hearing on his new evidence.

EDIT2: I should note in Georgia's defense that the clemency board apparently did hold a hearing.

Looks like Amnesty International may be the last chance. Perdue responds well to political pressure, but he doesn't seem to have any real authority, here. I've sent my letter, too.

I'm pretty sure he could personally offer clemency. We do have that in GA, don't we?

Why should Davis get a hearing in Federal court? Weren't these state charges?

The GA Supreme Court denied his appeal. Apparently, it was with an impossibly high standard (or, at least, that's what the dissenters said). I haven't read the decision - I think TCT said he was going to - but reading about it suggests that the three dissenters on the decision felt that the bar should be something that might change the outcome of trial - ie. might cause reasonable doubt. The 4 on the decision felt that the bar was that they had to be convinced by the new evidence of his innocence.

Anyways, from what I understand, state SC decisions on these things can be appealed up to the federal courts.

I'm pretty sure he could personally offer clemency. We do have that in GA, don't we?

Not from the Gov. It has to be the Board of Pardons and Paroles, per State Constitution.

Not from the Gov. It has to be the Board of Pardons and Paroles, per State Constitution.

Ah. So, yeah, Sonny can't do all that much.

Ah. So, yeah, Sonny can't do all that much.
I've lived in other states, where the Gov. did have that authority. Incorrectly, I took it for granted that this was another one of those.

At this point, I'm not sure anyone here on Earth can intervene for Davis. Say a prayer.

Does this bother anyone else?

The death penalty? Of course. But one cannot expect the USA to be better than Iran or Saudi Arabia in this matter, I am unsurprised to say...

I'm pretty sure he could personally offer clemency. We do have that in GA, don't we?



The GA Supreme Court denied his appeal. Apparently, it was with an impossibly high standard (or, at least, that's what the dissenters said). I haven't read the decision - I think TCT said he was going to - but reading about it suggests that the three dissenters on the decision felt that the bar should be something that might change the outcome of trial - ie. might cause reasonable doubt. The 4 on the decision felt that the bar was that they had to be convinced by the new evidence of his innocence.

Anyways, from what I understand, state SC decisions on these things can be appealed up to the federal courts.

Here (http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1758.pdf) is a 27-page pdf of the GA Supreme Court decision, which I linked earlier and have already provided some comment on. :wink: But let me provide some more in-depth analysis.

The majority applied the following standards:

We have held that a new trial may be granted based on newly discovered evidence only where the defendant shows each of the following:
(1) that the evidence has come to his knowledge since the trial; (2) that it was not owing to the want of due diligence that he did not acquire it sooner; (3) that it is so material that it would probably produce a different verdict; (4) that it is not cumulative only; (5) that the affidavit of the witness himself should be procured or its absence accounted for; and (6) that a new trial will not be granted if the only effect of the evidence will be to impeach the credit of a witness.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488, 491 (1) (271 SE2d 792) (1980). “Failure to show one requirement is sufficient to deny a motion for a new trial.” (Emphasis supplied.)

As to the recantations, the court looked at each one separately under this standard:

The only exception to the rule against setting aside a verdict[,] without proof of a material witness’ conviction for perjury, is where there can be no doubt of any kind that the State’s witness’ testimony in every material part is purest fabrication.” [Cit.] A recantation impeaches the witness’ prior testimony. [Cit.] However, it is not the kind of evidence that proves the witness’ previous testimony was the purest fabrication. See, e.g., Fugitt v. State, [251 Ga. 451 (1) (307 SE2d 471) (1983)] (the evidence offered was extrinsic proof that the witness’ testimony was physically impossible; consequently, the trial court was able to determine the truth of the matter without having to take into account the witness’ credibility).

Thus, the new statements were not considered because, taken alone, each one did not prove that the witnesses prior testimony was "the purest fabrication." (pages 6-12 of the opinion)

As to the statement that the other suspect had admitted his guilt, the court said:

It is the long-standing rule in this state that declarations to third persons against the declarant’s penal interest, to the effect that the declarant, and not the accused, was the actual perpetrator of the offense, are not admissible in favor of the accused at his trial . . . or to procure a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence.

(Citations omitted.) Timberlake, 246 Ga. at 492 (1).

Thus, the court gave little weight to these confessions. (pages 12-15)

The court held that the statements that the other suspect had possessed a gun at the time of the murders were not diligently produced and were not sufficiently material. (pages 15-16)

The court held that the new eyewitness statements saying the murder was committed by the other suspect were also not sufficiently material. (pages 18-19)

The court concluded:

Particularly in this death penalty case where a man might soon be executed, we have endeavored to look beyond bare legal principles that might otherwise be controlling to the core question of whether a jury presented with Davis’s allegedly-new testimony would probably find him not guilty or give him a sentence other than death. In that spirit, we have chosen to focus primarily on one of the required showings for an extraordinary motion for new trial, the requirement that the new evidence be “so material that it would probably produce a different verdict.” Timberlake, 246 Ga. at 491 (1). In weighing this new evidence, we do not ignore the testimony presented at trial, and, in fact, we favor that original testimony over the new. At least one original witness has never recanted his in-court identification of Davis as the shooter, which included a description of his clothing and the location he was in when he struck Larry Young. As we have noted above, most of the witnesses to the crime who have allegedly recanted have merely stated that they now do not feel able to identify the shooter. At trial, the jury had the benefit of hearing from witnesses and investigators close to the time of the murder, including both Davis and Coles claiming the other was guilty. We simply cannot disregard the jury’s verdict in this case. For that reason, along with the other reasons set forth above, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s extraordinary motion for new trial. Young, 269 Ga. at 491-492 (2).

The dissent stated:

Because this Court is entrusted with establishing the procedures and standards governing extraordinary motions for new trial, I would hold that recantations and confessions to third parties are not categorically excluded. Instead, they should be assessed by the trial court within its sound discretion. This Court was right to hold that such testimony is inherently suspect, and the Court was right to hold that a trial court should consider only such evidence as would be admissible if a new trial were ordered. However, this Court is free to adopt rules and standards that best promote the ends of justice, and this case illustrates with alarming clarity why this Court’s rules should allow trial courts to consider all forms of evidence that would be admissible if a new trial were ordered and to exercise sound discretion in weighing that evidence.

While the majority wisely decides to look beyond bare legal principles and seeks to consider the strength of Davis’s new evidence, I believe that it has weighed that evidence too lightly. In this case, nearly every witness who identified Davis as the shooter at trial has now disclaimed his or her ability to do so reliably. Three persons have stated that Sylvester Coles confessed to being the shooter. Two witnesses have stated that Sylvester Coles, contrary to his trial testimony, possessed a handgun immediately after the murder. Another witness has provided a description of the crimes that might indicate that Sylvester Coles was the shooter. Perhaps these witnesses’ testimony would prove incredible if a hearing were held. Perhaps the majority is correct that the alleged eyewitness’s testimony will actually show Davis’s guilt rather than his innocence. But the collective effect of all of Davis’s new testimony, if it were to be found credible by the trial court in a hearing,8 would show the probability that a new jury would find reasonable doubt of Davis’s guilt or at least sufficient residual doubt to decline to impose the death penalty. Accordingly, I would order the trial court to conduct a hearing, to weigh the credibility of Davis’s new evidence, and to exercise its discretion in determining if the new evidence would create the probability of a different outcome if a new trial were held.

I've tried to be fair to the majority of GA Supreme Court and their position is not without some merit, both legally and morally. But I firmly believe the dissent has the superior position.

(Please excuse any formatting errors. Cutting and pasting this stuff was a bitch. :wink:)

The death penalty? Of course. But one cannot expect the USA to be better than Iran or Saudi Arabia in this matter, I am unsurprised to say...

Thanks for that insightful and helpful contribution to the discussion.

Here (http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1758.pdf) is a 27-page pdf of the GA Supreme Court decision, which I linked earlier and have already provided some comment on. :wink: But let me provide some more in-depth analysis.

Sorry, I didn't read all the way through the thread.

Thanks for the summary.

I've tried to be fair to the majority of GA Supreme Court and their position is not without some merit, both legally and morally. But I firmly believe the dissent has the superior position.

Looking it up, I'm not surprised to see that Chief Justice Sears wrote the dissent. I really do tend to agree with her more often than not. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so that might not mean a whole lot.

Thanks for that insightful and helpful contribution to the discussion.

Actually it is both insightful as well as helpful. It is nothing but pitiable to see you discussing the legal merit of someone's execution, as if it were somehow not an anachronistic, barbaric, disgusting display of backwardness and indecency that in this day and age shouldn't even be conceivable in a country that has pretences to having Western, democratic values. You need to be incessantly reminded what a sad and retarded state you are in, lest you forget it and think it normal or acceptable.

Actually it is both insightful as well as helpful. It is nothing but pitiable to see you discussing the legal merit of someone's execution, as if it were somehow not an anachronistic, barbaric, disgusting display of backwardness and indecency that in this day and age shouldn't even be conceivable in a country that has pretences to having Western, democratic values. You need to be incessantly reminded what a sad and retarded state you are in, lest you forget it and think it normal or acceptable.

Actually, I'd agree that you make a fair point.

But given that I live in anachronistic, barbaric, disgusting, backward, indecent, sad, retarded system, is it truly pitiable to seek that we still have some modicum of due process?

BTW, what makes capital punishment anachronistic, barbaric, disgusting, backward, indecent, sad, and retarded in all cases? Does it matter that our pretence to having Western, democratic values includes giving the people a voice in what punishments are appropriate in extreme cases? Or is that someplace where our Western values should trump our democratic values?

Also, although the probable injustice in Davis's case is made exponentially worse by the death penalty, wouldn't his case still be an injustice if he were "merely" imprisoned for life for a crime he did not commit?

Actually, I'd agree that you make a fair point.

Naturally since, and I paraphrase Wilde, you are one of those in the gutter who is looking towards the stars. I mean that kindly.

But given that I live in anachronistic, barbaric, disgusting, backward, indecent, sad, retarded system, is it truly pitiable to seek that we still have some modicum of due process?

Even if the very modicum is what makes the travesty more palatable to a populace too ignorant to see the unchanging matter of the issue (and of course that there is no such thing as "due process" when it comes to the death penalty, IMO)? It seems to me a bit like treating the slaves nicely - kind in and of itself, but also soothing to a conscience which may otherwise not tolerate slavery. I'm afraid you accomplish very little, and in that process enable a greater evil to go on.

BTW, what makes capital punishment anachronistic, barbaric, disgusting, backward, indecent, sad, and retarded in all cases?

The very imperfection of humanity, and also the finite nature of our existence.

Does it matter that our pretence to having Western, democratic values includes giving the people a voice in what punishments are appropriate in extreme cases? Or is that someplace where our Western values should trump our democratic values?

Our Western, democratic values in nations that have proper constitutions rest on the old adage that democracy must never be allowed to become a tyranny of the majority. Hence the ludicrous folly in giving a mob, or anyone, the right to lynch.

Also, although the probable injustice in Davis's case is made exponentially worse by the death penalty, wouldn't his case still be an injustice if he were "merely" imprisoned for life for a crime he did not commit?

Were he "merely imprisoned for life", he wouldn't be fighting against such a definite and final clock to receive a writ from an ultimate appellate station of recourse whose make-up is highly politicised and thus might as well be random in how it adjudicates matters such as his, with respect to having it be up to "luck" as to how many of them might be inclined to see or not see a right in an antiquated document.

In weighing this new evidence, we do not ignore the testimony presented at trial, and, in fact, we favor that original testimony over the new.
In other words, when the courts are horribly wrong, they would rather stick to their original mistake than admit to it.
The justices of the Georgia Supreme Court are no better than murderers, although I will not say they should put to death for it.

Looking it up, I'm not surprised to see that Chief Justice Sears wrote the dissent. I really do tend to agree with her more often than not. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so that might not mean a whole lot.

I've said it before: You could be! You don't lack the abilities, not by a long shot!

Generally I don't like to grave dig, but considering it's on point, the Appellate Court has issued a stay (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/24/troy.davis.stay.execution/index.html)

Generally I don't like to grave dig, but considering it's on point, the Appellate Court has issued a stay (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/24/troy.davis.stay.execution/index.html)

It's only been, what, 8 days since the last post.

I'd hardly call that a grave dig.

A stay means the execution's on hold until they're done reviewing stuff, right?

Generally I don't like to grave dig, but considering it's on point, the Appellate Court has issued a stay (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/24/troy.davis.stay.execution/index.html)

No worries I was just about do post this.....

It's okay. I'm sure that the President will commute his sentence to life just to be safe.

*tries to keep a straight face*

You mean the Governor, right?

Anyway, this is why civilized places don't have the death penalty. And yet another reason I'm proud that my state was the first democratic government in the world to abolish the death penalty.

It's only been, what, 8 days since the last post.

I'd hardly call that a grave dig.

A stay means the execution's on hold until they're done reviewing stuff, right?

25 days, according to the article.

Good for the 11th. I hope this time, he gets the hearing that he's been asking for.