> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Supremes took *four hours* to decide to reject the > > request for a stay. Why didn't that in and of itself > > suggest to them that "beyond a reasonable doubt" > > didn't apply in this case? > > The death penalty is barbaric. There was so much media hoopla > in support of Troy Davis, mostly emphasizing recanted testimony, > I began to wonder what evidence got him convicted "beyond a > reasonable doubt" in the first place. I don't know exactly what > the Supremes talked about for four hours, but if they limited > their review to the evidence in the original case, it's doubtful > that people changing their minds about what they saw 20 years > ago figured into their decision.
I don't know what the request for a stay was based on; I doubt it was the evidence in the original case. The court would have considered whatever the request put forward. I suspect it was more likely they considered what had gone on with the various appeals, whether those courts and the pardon board had properly conducted their examinations. > I had a feeling I could get another slant on the story if I > went to www.memeorandum.com Sure enough conservative wingnut, > Red State had some details about the case not reported by the > media. Red State wingnuts cheer Rick Perry for executions in > Texas. It's no surprise their article is biased against Davis. Yeah, I wouldn't take Red State's version as gospel. > According to Red State there were 34 witnesses, not 9. The 9 they keep referring to were the eyewitnesses who identified Davis as the shooter. Of course there were lots of other witnesses. This is irrelevant. > Only two of the 9 changed their testimony materially. What's Red State's definition of "materially"? Does it include the witness saying they were uncertain of their identification but were coerced by police into stating it as a fact? The thing is that the ways the identifications were obtained in the first place were incredibly sloppy. I read a long article about this at one point, which I can't now find, but the police behavior was really scandalous. > Police obtained obtained clothing from Davis' home > with MacPhail's blood without a warrant. It was > never brought into evidence. There's an editorial note saying the blood was never tested for DNA, so I'm not sure how they know it was MacPhail's. > There were gun casings matching Davis' gun in a > previous shooting. That testimony has also been called in question. And it was "*could* have come from the same gun," not "*did* come from the same gun." They never found the gun. > Given the botched collection of evidence, IMO Davis might have > been found not guilty if he had had good legal representation. Or at least not given the death penalty. > The police screwed up, they were certain Davis shot MacPhail > and didn't want him to get away with murder, so they fixed the > case against him. I don't know, just sayn'. It's just sad they > had to kill him. Here's a thorough summary of the eyewitness testimony and recantations, and how the appeals courts ruled when the recantations were cited as reason for a retrial: http://legalcases.info/troydavis/ So much of the appeals process is procedural rather than evidentiary. For example (from Wikipedia's Davis article): "Legal experts argued that a major obstacle to granting Davis a new trial was the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, passed after the Oklahoma City bombing, which bars death row inmates from later presenting evidence they could have presented at trial. Members of the legal community have criticized the restricting effect of the 1996 Act on the ability of wrongfully convicted persons to prove their innocence." >From the Wikipedia article and the testimony summaries above, it really does look as though while the prosecution was gunning for Davis, they had help from ineffective defense attorneys, as you suggest. On the other hand, one of the defense attorneys in the appeals process pointed out that the organization that funded the attorneys had its budget cut by 75 percent, which made it impossible for the attorneys to interview some important witnesses who might have had significant new evidence.
