Hearing on innocence claim ordered
Monday, August 17th, 2009 10:29 am | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post
The Supreme Court, over two Justices’ dissents, on Monday ordered a federal judge in Georgia to consider and rule on the claim of innocence in the murder case against Troy Anthony Davis (In re Davis, 08-1443) The Court told the District Court to “receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence.”
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Some of their arguments were answered in a separate opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The new member of the Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, took no part in the Court’s action.
The action was highly unusual, because Davis had filed what is called an original writ of habeas corpus — that is, a plea for his release, filed directly in the Supreme Court rather than in lower courts. Such claims rarely succeed. Justice Scalia noted in his dissent that the Court had not taken a similar step “in nearly 50 years.” (The documents that were before the Justices — the original writ, petition for certiorari, brief in opposition, and amici filings — can be downloaded here.)
The action also was unusual because the Court normally does not take actions of this significance during its summer recess. The case had been ready for the Justices’ consideration near the end of their past Term, in late June, but they simply took no action at that time. There was no word on why the Court took it up again at this time, rather than waiting until a new Term had opened. The length of the two opinions released Monday, however, may have taken some time to prepare, especially with most of the Justices traveling during the summer recess.
The Court did not disclose how each of the Justices had voted, other than the dissents of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Presumably, however, an order of this kind would have required the approval of at least five votes. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens presumably voted for the order; their opinion said the case was the type was was exceptional enough to qualify for the action. It is unclear how Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., or Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., voted, if they did, but it appears that at least two of them would have had to agree to the step taken.
Davis was convicted in 1991 of murdering an off-duty Savannah police officer, Mark Allen MacPhail, in 1989. Since his trial, Davis has claimed, seven of the state of Georgia’s key witneeses have recanted the testimony they gave at the trial. Several other individuals have implicated another man — the prosecution’s key witness against Davis — as the shooter.
The Court’s order and Justice Stevens’ separate opinion can be downloaded here . Justice Scalia’s dissent is available here.
The Court’s action set off a sharply-worded exchange — Justice Stevens on one side, Justice Scalia on the other — over the strength of Davis’ claim to be innocent, and over whether the Georgia federal judge who will be conducting the new reiew has any power to rule for Davis.
The Court has never ruled on whether a credible claim of “actual innocence” justifies extraordinary remedies in federal court, when a state conviction is involved. Davis’ case may well test that issue, as it moves through the federal courts again. Justice Scalia, in fact, said in his opinion Monday that, if there is a genuine issue on that point, the Court itself should decide the issue.
On the merits of Davis’ claim, Justice Scalia dismissed it as “a sure loser.” He said that the Georgia Supreme Court, the federal Eleventh Circuit, and the Georgia pardon board have all considered the very evidence that Davis now cites, and “found it lacking.”
Justice Stevens did not judge finally the merits of the claim, but hinted that he had found it at least partly supported, saying that “the substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death” justified the Court in taking the unusual action it did on Monday.
On the power of a federal judge to rule in Davis’ favor at this stage, Scalia argued that the 1996 federal law limiting federal habeas review of state criminal convictions — the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) — barred any federal court from hearing Davis’ claim because there was no error at his trial that violated any prior Supreme Court decision.
Scalia wrote: “This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.” He conceded, though, that the Court has left the issue open.
Stevens said that the District judge may have authority to act, perhaps finding that AEDPA’s limits do not apply to “original” habeas writs of the kind the Justices acted on on Monday, or do not apply to a habeas claim of “actual innocence.” In addition, Stevens said, there may be an argument that AEDPA’s habeas limits are unconstitutional if they barred court review of such a claim. Finally, Stevens said, it can be argued that it would be a federal constitutional violation to execute an innocent person.
All of those issues, presumably, will be canvassed initially by the federal District judge, with further review likely in both the Eleventh Circuit and, potentially, the Supreme Court.
So the guys goes to trial and is placed on the stand against a litany of witnesses who were later found to have been lying in their testimony. IE: the "proof" of his guilt was predicated on a lie. Upon SCOTUS review, they find that there's enough merit to the defendant's claims to request review of the new evidence, but apparently that's not enough for Scalia. How the **** can any judge say "it's perfectly okay to execute an innocent person?" **** Scalia. **** him in his idiotic ear.
apunkjunkie - "Sorry to burst your bubble, but less than 1% of the southern citizens owned slaves and out of that, most were treated fairly well. So no, slavery wasn't a big issue."
Eye witness testimony: the most trusted, the least accurate.
<3 America.
__________________
Maxpow
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
— Thomas Jefferson
“A turbo: exhaust gasses go into the turbocharger and spin it, witchcraft happens and you go faster.”
— Jeremy Clarkson
1987 Nissan 200SX SE
__________________
FuriousGeorge: "You seem to have this Freudian view that if you put an ad on television, it somehow influences their priorities greatly enough so that they go out and buy the product."
justinwb: "Thats great.......I dont really care what you think, you arent part of my target audience. My target audience would be someone with an IQ over 120." http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8254/outx.jpg
Supreme court needs a serious flush, its like the worlds dirtiest toilet, so much **** in there.
__________________
Maxpow
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
— Thomas Jefferson
“A turbo: exhaust gasses go into the turbocharger and spin it, witchcraft happens and you go faster.”
— Jeremy Clarkson
1987 Nissan 200SX SE
Supreme court needs a serious flush, its like the worlds dirtiest toilet, so much **** in there.
If only we could go back to the days of Brennan, Burger, and Blackmun.
__________________
Mutilated lips give a kiss on the wrist
Of the worm like tips of tentacles expanding
In my mind, I'm fine, accepting only fresh brine
You can get another drop of this, yeah you wish
I don't think that Scalia was saying what you guys think he was. He was saying that its not the federal supreme court's job to tell a federal district court to review a case based on claims of actual innocence. The federal district court doesn't have the legal authority to reverse a state court decision unless it "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States". A claim of actual innocence by itself without any violation of federal statutes, the constitution, or of supreme court rules, does not meet that standard. Therefore the district court has zero power to offer any remedy anyway.
Further, even though a district court has never in the history of this country provided relief in such a case, the district court actually DID look at the same evidence that is before the Supreme Court and concluded that "When we view all of this evidence as a whole, we cannot honestly say that Davis can establish by clear and convincing evidence that a jury would not have found him guilty of Officer MacPhail's murder."
Further the Georgia Supreme courts had ALSO already considered the merits of the supposed new evidence, writing that they "looked 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 of less than death." After analyzing the new evidence, they concluded that it was not probable there would be a different result.
Further, the Georgia Board of Pardons ALSO considered the merits of the new evidence, "[we] spent more than a year studying and considering [his] case... gave Davis' attorney's opportunity to present every witness they desired to support their allegation... heard each of these witnesses and questioned them closely... studied the voluminous trial transcript, the police investigation report and the initial statements of the witnesses... had certain physical evidence retested and Davis interviewed... after an exhaustive review of all available information regarding the Troy Davis case and after considering all possible reasons for granting clemency, the Board... determined that clemency is not warranted.
The guy is clearly guilty. Not only did a jury of his peers find that unanimously in his original trial, but the Georgia Supreme Court, Georgia Board of Pardons, and a Federal Appeals Court each independently found that Davis' supposed new evidence was not even strong enough that it would have convinced a jury to find him not guilty. Davis' trials and appeals process was completely legal under federal laws and supreme court rules, meaning that his right to due process was in no way infringed. Davis is merely arguing that the trial court, the Georgia Supreme Court, and the Pardon Board "got it wrong". I doubt it. And I'm pretty comfortable with a law that limits criminals' abilities to file frivolous "actual innocence claims" with federal courts when there was exactly nothing wrong with their original trial and with their appeal attempts within the state.
__________________
University of Wisconsin-Madison 2010
I would have normally agreed with you except for this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuna
when there was exactly nothing wrong with their original trial and with their appeal attempts within the state.
Yes, there was something tremendously wrong with the trial. Key witnesses lied in their testimony against him, and now claim that somebody else is the real perpetrator of the crime. The GA review board doesn't have to meet the same requirements of an actual court, so their review of the new evidence can still sentence an innocent man to death WITH doubt. That's not justice. No, he's not "clearly guilty" at all.
apunkjunkie - "Sorry to burst your bubble, but less than 1% of the southern citizens owned slaves and out of that, most were treated fairly well. So no, slavery wasn't a big issue."
__________________
"Originally posted by §Galactus§if i had a horse, i would put armor on it. and i would wear armor, and ride around collecting taxes and tributes from the serfs."
"Originally posted by §Galactus§You should sig me again. That way, when everyone looks at your signature, they would be like "Holy **** that dude is so awesome he got sigged twice" It would be espically awesome if you sigged this post. So that people who read your sig will be confused as well as amazed
I would have normally agreed with you except for this:
Yes, there was something tremendously wrong with the trial. Key witnesses lied in their testimony against him, and now claim that somebody else is the real perpetrator of the crime. The GA review board doesn't have to meet the same requirements of an actual court, so their review of the new evidence can still sentence an innocent man to death WITH doubt. That's not justice. No, he's not "clearly guilty" at all.
Yes, according to Davis' defense attorney's and liberal blog posts. But the GA Supreme Court and a Federal Appeals court both reviewed the very same "new evidence" and found it unconvincing. These are people who are actually familiar with the criminal justice system and deal with criminal cases on regular basis.
Here is a recent statement from the prosecuting district attorney:
Quote:
Many people are concerned that an innocent man is about to be put to death. I know this, and I understand it. I am not likewise concerned, however, and I want to explain why.
The only information the public has had in the 17 years since Troy Davis' conviction has been generated by people ideologically opposed to the death penalty, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
While they have shouted, we have been silent. The canons of legal ethics prohibit a lawyer - prosecutor and defense counsel alike - from commenting publicly, or engineering public comments, on the issue of guilt or innocence in a pending criminal case.
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, the case is over, and I can try to tell our side.
First, Davis' advocates have insisted that there was no physical evidence in the case. This is not true.
Crime lab tests proved that the shell casings recovered from the shooting of Michael Cooper at a party earlier in the evening were fired from the same weapon as the casings recovered from the scene of Officer Mark MacPhail's murder. Davis was convicted of shooting Cooper.
And, while it isn't physical evidence, consider the "testimony" of Officer MacPhail himself: When he comes to the rescue of a homeless man being harassed and pistol-whipped, the officer ran past Sylvester Coles on his way to catch Davis. This makes Davis the only one of those two with a motive to shoot Officer MacPhail. Yet Davis' lawyers argue to condemn Coles for shooting MacPhail. Why would he?
In fact, Davis' advocates are eager to condemn Coles based on evidence far weaker than their characterization of the evidence against Davis. Where is their sense of fairness? This is the same Sylvester Coles who promptly presented himself to police, and who was advised by counsel to tell all that he knew - with his lawyer not even present. Which he did. No lawyer who even faintly suspects a client of criminal conduct would let him talk to the police without counsel.
Second, they claim that seven of nine witnesses have recanted their trial testimony. This is not believable.
To be sure, they've produced affidavits; a few handwritten and apparently voluntarily and spontaneous, except for concluding with "further the affiant sayeth not." Who wrote that stuff? The lawyers, perhaps?
The law is understandably skeptical of post-trial "newly-discovered evidence."
Such evidence as these affidavits might, for example, be paid for, or coerced, or the product of fading memory.
If every verdict could be set aside by the casual acceptance of a witness's changing his mind or suggesting uncertainty, decades after the event, it is easy to see how many cases would have to be tried at least twice (perhaps ad infinitum).
Thus the law sets strict standards for such "newly discovered" evidence.
For example, it cannot be for a lack of diligence that the new evidence was not discovered sooner, and the defendant is expected to present that evidence at the earliest possible time.
Yet these affidavits were not offered in a motion for new trial until eight days before the first scheduled execution in 2008 seventeen years after Davis' conviction. If this affidavit evidence was so compelling, why didn't they rush to seek a new trial in 2003 when they had most of the affidavits they now rely upon? Or collect those affidavits earlier?
Each of the now-"recanting" witnesses was closely questioned at trial by lawyers representing Davis, specifically on the question whether they were in any way pressured or coerced by police in giving their statements or testimony. All denied it.
And while an 80 percent recantation rate - the first in the history of the world ? - may seem to some as overwhelmingly persuasive, to others of us it invites a suggestion of uncanny coincidence, making it very difficult to believe.
Third, they claim that their "newly discovered evidence" (i.e., the recantations) hasn't been adequately considered by the courts. This is not true.
The affidavits, in various combinations, had already been reviewed by 29 judges in seven different types of review, over the course of 17 years, before Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The state Parole Board halted the execution in 2007, saying they wouldn't allow a possibly innocent man to be executed. Then, after more than a year of reviewing all of the evidence on both sides, and hearing from every witness Davis' lawyers presented - including Davis - they refused to grant clemency.
The trial was fair. Davis was represented by superbly skilled criminal defense lawyers. He was convicted by a fair jury (seven black and five white). The post conviction stridency we've seen has been much about the death penalty and little about Troy Davis.
The jury found that Davis, after shooting another man earlier in the evening, murdered a police officer who came to the rescue of a homeless man Davis had beaten. Mark MacPhail had never even drawn his weapon.
__________________
University of Wisconsin-Madison 2010
Link for that? I couldnt' find the statements from the prosecution.
Also, the hand-waving dismissal of recanted testimony is somewhat irrelevant: he's the prosecutor, that's his job. That's where the SCOTUS disagrees. Recanted testimony is absolutely relevant.
apunkjunkie - "Sorry to burst your bubble, but less than 1% of the southern citizens owned slaves and out of that, most were treated fairly well. So no, slavery wasn't a big issue."
Also, the hand-waving dismissal of recanted testimony is somewhat irrelevant: he's the prosecutor, that's his job. That's where the SCOTUS disagrees. Recanted testimony is absolutely relevant.
And Georgia Courts up until the GA Supremes ruled that the supposed recantations were unlikely to change the outcome of the trial. First of all I have not read the affidavits, but I noticed that the defense attorney's never say that 7 of the 9 original prosecution witnesses say explicitly that Davis was not the shooter, mere that they "recanted". Which means that they changed their testimony with regard to any minor detail. Futher, as the DA attorney points out, there are very good reasons why courts treat after-the-fact evidence with suspicion. It is less likely to be accurate. It is more likely to have been tainted by time, emotions, coercion, or other factor.
The defense wants you to think that its more likely that the police coerced false testimony out of every single witness in the case, who then went on the stand and all resolutely testified that they had not been coerced in any way, than it is that these people were simply convinced by defense attorneys to sign affidavits in the years after the trial. It doesn't make sense. The defense wants you to think that it was Coles who committed the murder, even though he returned to the scene of the crime and voluntarily offered his information to detectives, versus Davis who immediately after the crime was known to have changed clothes, and then fled to Atlanta. Oh, and Davis has been separately convicted of shooting a different man with the same gun earlier that day.
__________________
University of Wisconsin-Madison 2010
So the guys goes to trial and is placed on the stand against a litany of witnesses who were later found to have been lying in their testimony. IE: the "proof" of his guilt was predicated on a lie. Upon SCOTUS review, they find that there's enough merit to the defendant's claims to request review of the new evidence, but apparently that's not enough for Scalia. How the **** can any judge say "it's perfectly okay to execute an innocent person?" **** Scalia. **** him in his idiotic ear.
Where does it say the witnesses lied? You're adding in things again Crazy....I thought you'd know what the word "recant" means.
Where does it say the witnesses lied? You're adding in things again Crazy....I thought you'd know what the word "recant" means.
No, the idea I had is the same as the proper definition: "to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and publicly"
Quote:
Davis was convicted in 1991 of murdering an off-duty Savannah police officer, Mark Allen MacPhail, in 1989. Since his trial, Davis has claimed, seven of the state of Georgia’s key witneeses have recanted the testimony they gave at the trial. Several other individuals have implicated another man — the prosecution’s key witness against Davis — as the shooter.
If you make a statement under oath and then later say it's not true, one of those two statements is a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuna
The defense wants you to think that its more likely that the police coerced false testimony out of every single witness in the case, who then went on the stand and all resolutely testified that they had not been coerced in any way, than it is that these people were simply convinced by defense attorneys to sign affidavits in the years after the trial. It doesn't make sense. The defense wants you to think that it was Coles who committed the murder, even though he returned to the scene of the crime and voluntarily offered his information to detectives, versus Davis who immediately after the crime was known to have changed clothes, and then fled to Atlanta. Oh, and Davis has been separately convicted of shooting a different man with the same gun earlier that day.
This is still well within a "reasonable doubt." And it's well worth investigating.
apunkjunkie - "Sorry to burst your bubble, but less than 1% of the southern citizens owned slaves and out of that, most were treated fairly well. So no, slavery wasn't a big issue."
Last edited by CrazyLittle : 08-18-2009 at 05:33 PM.
Overbear: better 10 innocent men be convicted, than a single guilty man go free to commit more crime. Overbear: I prefer that I be given a license to shoot anyone who would pick socialism or communism over the basic freedoms inherent to consumerism. MatrixBaller04 AKA EricS9652: I can guarantee something will happen between now and February 9th. Tha-Italian-Stallion: America is the same country who made a should be slave it's leader.... why the **** would I have any pride in that? Blake360: in highschool, my teacher's father worked for the CIA and she brought my class documents proving the Roswell crash was of extraterrestrial origin.
who woulda thunk that the most tyranical branch of government is the one directly interpreting the constition
__________________
America: Home of the free, because of the brave. Thanks to my friends and family serving in our armed forces; Spc. Tom Kramer, U.S. Army (Iraq). Pvt. Matt Kramer, U.S. Army. Spc. Ryan Shinault, Florida National Guard (Iraq).
No, the idea I had is the same as the proper definition: "to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and publicly"
The only problem is that death penalty case witnesses recant all the time. They begin to feel guilty about "killing" someone. They get pressure for the surrounding community. They change their views on the death penalty. Just because they recant, doesn't mean they lied. If they did lie, then prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and let the guy who's been sitting in jail for years sue them for all they're worth for false statements against him that lead to a bad prosecution.
The only problem is that death penalty case witnesses recant all the time. They begin to feel guilty about "killing" someone. They get pressure for the surrounding community. They change their views on the death penalty. Just because they recant, doesn't mean they lied. If they did lie, then prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and let the guy who's been sitting in jail for years sue them for all they're worth for false statements against him that lead to a bad prosecution.
Yeah, but in order to do that, you need a stay of execution, and another trial for the recanting witnesses... which seems to be what SCOTUS is asking for. I don't have a problem with the process. I have a problem with Scalia saying that it's perfectly OK to execute somebody who could very well be innocent.
apunkjunkie - "Sorry to burst your bubble, but less than 1% of the southern citizens owned slaves and out of that, most were treated fairly well. So no, slavery wasn't a big issue."
So the guys goes to trial and is placed on the stand against a litany of witnesses who were later found to have been lying in their testimony.
No, SOME witnesses recanted their testimony. There is a world of difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyLittle
Upon SCOTUS review, they find that there's enough merit to the defendant's claims to request review of the new evidence, but apparently that's not enough for Scalia.
But not apparently enough to spring him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyLittle
How the **** can any judge say "it's perfectly okay to execute an innocent person?" **** Scalia. **** him in his idiotic ear.
The man had multiple appeals and went before the Georgia Pardon and Parole Board with the same evidence and testimony he now has. He lost each time.
Also, you are bravely presuming the defendant is innocent. I suppose you now believe those who are now recanting their testimony as opposed to when they testified in a court of law under oath. This does not prove innocence, especially in light of other witnesses who have not recanted their testimony. If this guy does get off, I certainly hope those who are now recanting their sworn testimony are charged with and convicted of perjury. Perhaps they can serve time WITH Davis since he seems to not be able to beat that other murder conviction of his.
CL, I don't think you really understand Scalia's dissent. Tuna summed it up well.
custar
__________________
Are the Geisterjagers over the top?
Well, let's just say "The Top" is barely a speck in our rear view mirror.
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
Samuel Adams
Ave Caesar Obama! Tributituri ad moritus te salutant.
Scalia says, "executing the innocent is A-OKAY"
