But the judge overseeing the hearing, William T. Moore Jr., decided that in order to overturn the original jury verdict, Davis needed not only to cast doubt on the evidence against him, but to provide "clear and compelling" proof of his innocence. In an August 2010 ruling dismissing Davis' appeal, he declared that while the state's case "may not be ironclad," Davis failed to make a showing of "actual innocence" and thus should not be granted a new trial.I honestly didn't know that a judge could decide this.
For more information on Troy's case and to keep posted on what you can do today and tomorrow, visit the CEDP website at http://nodeathpenalty.org. Send your messages urging reversal to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole -- Call 404-656-5651, e-mail webmaster@pap.state.ga.us and fax 404-651-8502.posted by zarq at 9:26 AM on September 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sorry in the case of Gacy, Bundy, Alcala----it was/is the right thing.Sorry, it was/is not.
Right now, please immediately act and urge the parole board to reconsider their decision. Please politely e-mail the board members at Clemency_Information@pap.state.ga.us or fax their office at (404) 651-8502.posted by nicebookrack at 11:55 AM on September 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
[...]
Today is a Day of Protest to express our outrage at the recent decision to deny Troy Davis clemency. And on Wednesday (Sept. 21), we're calling for a Day of Vigil on Troy's impending execution date.
Everyone is encouraged to wear a black armband, with "not in my name!" written on it.
In Atlanta, there will be a protest rally at the state capitol tonight at 7pm EDT (Washington Street side).
In Washington, DC, we'll be back at Tivoli Square (Columbia Heights Metro stop) tonight at 6pm EDT.
Everywhere else: protests are encouraged. Check with your state coalition to see what plans they have.
The next morning, the first words out of my daughter's mouth, sitting up in her bed, were about Troy Davis.posted by nicebookrack at 11:56 AM on September 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
"You know how we were talking about Troy last night? How does that work?"
"I'm sorry," I had to say, "how does what work?"
"Well, how do they kill him? Will he just stand there and have to -- let them kill him?"
But the judge overseeing the hearing, William T. Moore Jr., decided that in order to overturn the original jury verdict, Davis needed not only to cast doubt on the evidence against him, but to provide "clear and compelling" proof of his innocence. In an August 2010 ruling dismissing Davis' appeal, he declared that while the state's case "may not be ironclad," Davis failed to make a showing of "actual innocence" and thus should not be granted a new trial.I honestly didn't know that a judge could decide this.
4. Of the two of the nine key witnesses who have not changed their story publicly, one has kept silent for the past 20 years and refuses to talk, and the other is Sylvester Coles. Coles was the man who first came forward to police and implicated Davis as the killer. But over the past 20 years evidence has grown that Coles himself may be the gunman and that he was fingering Davis to save his own skin.Glover was just on CNN claiming that Coles threatened to kill here if she said anything.
5. In total, nine people have come forward with evidence that implicates Coles. Most recently, on Monday the George Board of Pardons and Paroles heard from Quiana Glover who told the panel that in June 2009 she had heard Coles, who had been drinking heavily, confess to the murder of MacPhail.
Q: But it's your testimony the police never pressured you to say anything in those two statements from August 19th or August—How many of the news reports, blogs etc. mention that Antoine Williams' hearing testimony flatly contradicted the testimony in his affidavit? What about the fact that Dorothy Ferrell, who claimed misdentification and coercion at the original trial, was at the District Court to give testimony but Davis' attorneys chose not to put her on the stand, even though they were warned by the court, and acknowledged, that the court would by law have to discount her affidavit testimony significantly if she did not take the stand? Why was there no real effort to get Sylvester Coles (the person Davis claims shot McPhail) in front of the court? Davis' attorneys claim they attempted to serve notice on him the day before the evidentiary hearing but that he was 'out' and they couldn't locate him. This is despite Davis knowing both Coles' work and home addresses, and having months of notice of the evidentiary hearing. Davis' attorneys never even asked the court to subpoena his testimony (ie by having a US Marshal serve notice to testify). If the court had issued a subpoena and Coles had failed to appear or fled town, then that would have strengthened Davis' case. But they didn't bother to apply for a subpoena, because:
A —Ma'am, nobody never pressured me, ma'am. just . .
Q: And nobody suggested for you to say anything specific?
A: No, ma'am, never.
(note 87) As Mr. Davis explained, Mr. Coles will likely deny his involvement in the crime and proffer some explanation for the confessions, or outright deny that he made them. (Evidentiary Hearing Transcript at 158-59.) However, the Court is not required to accept such testimony at face-value. In the end, Mr. Davis appeared to forget that the witness stand is the crucible of credibility; and his reluctance to put Mr. Coles to the test robbed the Court of its ability to accurately assess Mr. Coles's claim that he did not shoot Officer MacPhail.It makes no sense to bring a defense witness to court but then refuse to put that person on the stand, or to claim that someone else committed a crime but decline the court's assistance in getting hold of that person. I also think Judge Moore was pretty well aware of the issues regarding reliability of eyewitness testimony, coercion, and their implications for the potential execution of the innocent; his analysis begins with a detailed review of appellate procedure in death penalty cases, 8th amendment jurisprudence, advances in forensic science, and the standards for post-conviction exculpatory evidence in all 50 US states. It's like a 35-page primer in building criminal appeals around newly available factual information, citing statute, precedent, law review articles, and even the New Yorker.
...in declining to revisit the claims of actual innocence in the Davis case, Georgia was forced to say "that its interest in the finality of its capital judgments is more important than the accuracy of its capital verdicts." That question—why and how many of us are willing to tolerate error to achieve finality—is the real dispute here. And it's why, in the Davis case as in almost all death penalty cases, the two sides have talked past each other for so long.posted by scody at 6:22 PM on September 21, 2011 [4 favorites]
[...] America's conversation over capital punishment has long been weighted toward the interests of finality. But there is a growing space for reason and doubt and scientific certainty. It's hardly a surprise that prosecutors, courts, and clemency boards favor finality over certainty. That—after all—is the product they must show at the end of the day. But maybe the surprise, and the faint hope, of the massive outcry over the execution of Troy Davis, is that the rest of us have found a way to demand more from a system that has—for too long—only needed to be good enough.
Of his seven "recant ations," only one is aSpecific problems with the recantations begin on page 125 and are worth reading over if you're interested in the case.
meaningful, credible recantation. Supra Analysis Part III.B.
The value of that recantation is diminished because it only
confirms that which was obvious at trial—that its author was
testifying falsely. Id. Part III.B.ii (Kevin McQueen). Four of
the remaining six recantations are either not credible or not
true recantations and would be disregarded. Id. Parts III.B.i
(Antoine Williams), III..iii (Jeffrey Sapp), III.B.iv (Darrell
Collins), III.B.v (Harriet Murray). The remaining two
recantations were presented under the most suspicious of
circumstances, with Mr. Davis intentionally preventing the
validity of the recantation from being challenged in open court
through cross-examination. Id. Parts III.B.vi (Dorothy
Ferrell), III.B.vii (Larry Young) . Worse, these witnesses were
readily available—one was actually waiting in the courthouse—and
Mr. Davis chose not to present their recantations as live
testimony.
Mr. Davis's additional, non-recantation evidence also does
not change the balance of proof from trial. At the outset, the
Court notes that much of this evidence was presented in
affidavit form. Affidavit evidence is viewed with great
suspicion'" and has diminished value. Herrera, 506 U.S. at 417.
Moreover, this evidence, whether presented as live testimony or
in affidavit form, suffers other serious defects. The two
witness identifications of Mr. Coles as the shooter were not
credible, and Peggie Grant's affidavit testimony placing Mr.
Coles in a white shirt is widely refuted in the record. Id.
Part III.C.iii. The hearsay confessions carry little weight
because the underlying confessions are uncorroborated and there
is good reason to believe that they were false. 105 Id. Part
III.C.i. Further diminishing the value of this evidence is the
fact that Mr. Davis had the means to test the validity of the
underlying confessions by calling and impeaching Mr. Coles, but
chose not to do s0. 106 Other evidence in this category simply
lacks probative value; the munitions evidence and the accounts
from April Hutchinson, Tonya Johnson, Anita Saddler, Gary
Hargrove, and Daniel Kinsman are either totally inapposite or
are of the most minimal probative value. See id. Parts
III.C.ii, III.C.iii, III.C.iv. As a body, this evidence does
not change the balance of proof that was presented at Mr.
Davis's trial.
Ultimately, while Mr. Davis's new evidence casts some
additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke
and mirrors. The vast majority of the evidence at trial remains
intact, and the new evidence is largely not credible or lacking
in probative value. After careful consideration, the Court
finds that Mr. Davis has failed to make a showing of actual
innocence that would entitle him to habeas relief in federal
court. 107 Accordingly, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
is DENIED.'°8
I'm a law student, who has a lot of experience with criminal law / procedure / appeals. Here's what's wrong with your post. Going to the Troy Davis wiki, his lawyers argued for procedural errors in the state appeals, and argued for 'actual innocence' in the federal 'appeals'.So it sounds like going for actual innocence was the only route Davis could go.
This has nothing to do with whether or not arguing 'actual innocence' is a good idea. Appealing a state conviction in federal court means you're relying on federal habeas corpus law. The last, say, 20 years have basically restricted federal oversight of state cases almost exclusively to wildly obvious errors in disregard of existing supreme court precedent, or actual innocence. His lawyers weren't arguing 'actual innocence' federally because it was a good argument, but rather because that's the only avenue open. Had they raised the claim you made in federal court, they would have just flat out lost on procedural grounds without it being heard.
Prison official John Whitmire said he wanted the "ridiculous" and "inappropriate" practice ended or he'd seek a state statute banning it.posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:20 AM on September 23, 2011
Prisons director Brad Livingston agreed and said the practice was ending immediately.
« Older The 2011 MacArthur “Genius" Fellowships have ... | The ongoing student demonstrat... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by sweetkid at 8:32 AM on September 20, 2011 [5 favorites]