Death Row Inmates Plea Rejected

[MJS]

http://www.policeone.com/corrections/articles/4379326-Death-row-inmate-Troy-Davis-plea-rejected/

SAVANNAH, Ga. — A last-ditch clemency plea from death row inmate Troy Davis has been rejected in the US state of Georgia.
Despite high-profile support from figures including the Pope and a former FBI director for the claim that he was wrongly convicted of killing a police officer in 1989, the Georgia's pardons board rejected his plea.


Davis is scheduled to die tomorrow by injection for the killing of off-duty officer Mark MacPhail, who was killed while rushing to help a homeless man being attacked.
It is the fourth time in four years that Davis' execution has been scheduled by Georgia officials.

Thoughts? Yes, I know there are mixed views on the death penalty, and this could be one of those cases, where in fact an innocent man was put to death. I dont know all of the specifics of this case, other than what I've read, but one thing that always amazes me, is the fact that this happened in 1989....thats 22yrs. IMHO, if people can't figure out whether this man is innocent or guilty in 22yrs, then something is really messed up.

 

[Empty Hands]

There was no direct physical evidence tying Davis to the crime, and 7 of 9 eyewitnesses recanted their testimony. Furthermore, the witnesses that recanted claimed that they were pressured by the police to produce their testimony. This case is the very picture definition of "reasonable doubt". In the long run, executing people like this will only weaken the case for the death penalty as it becomes more and more obvious that innocent people are being put to death. Given that the Innocence Project has been able to get 273 death row inmates exonerated, this has obviously already happened.

In principal, I have no problem with the death penalty. In practice, it's obvious that it is not applied in this country to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." As the system stands, I'm shocked anyone could support it.

 

[cdunn]

In principal, I have no problem with the death penalty. In practice, it's obvious that it is not applied in this country to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." As the system stands, I'm shocked anyone could support it.

Remember the basic principles of American injustice: Revenge is more important than reparation and prevention. Catharsis for society is more important than truth.

 

[Big Don]

What "Direct physical evidence" do you want? He MURDERED a cop in full view of over THIRTY people.
There ought to be a way, when someone is so obviously guilty, to execute them and save MILLIONS.

 

[MJS]

There was no direct physical evidence tying Davis to the crime, and 7 of 9 eyewitnesses recanted their testimony. Furthermore, the witnesses that recanted claimed that they were pressured by the police to produce their testimony. This case is the very picture definition of "reasonable doubt". In the long run, executing people like this will only weaken the case for the death penalty as it becomes more and more obvious that innocent people are being put to death. Given that the Innocence Project has been able to get 273 death row inmates exonerated, this has obviously already happened.

In principal, I have no problem with the death penalty. In practice, it's obvious that it is not applied in this country to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." As the system stands, I'm shocked anyone could support it.

In the right circumstances, yes, I support the death penalty. And yes, the Innocence Project is a good thing and has certainly done its share of saving the lives of those truely innocent. Again, this begs the question of why it takes that long to figure out if someone is guilty or not. On another note, I have to wonder...were those witnesses really forced into saying certain things, or did they, after giving it thought, decide to change their story, out of fear of retaliation? That happens all the time. People dont say anything, dont want to come forward, because they fear the dirtbags.

What "Direct physical evidence" do you want? He MURDERED a cop in full view of over THIRTY people.
There ought to be a way, when someone is so obviously guilty, to execute them and save MILLIONS.

I could think of a way. Figure out a set time, ie: 1 month, 2 months, 6 months, etc., for everyone to get their stuff in order. Then, with only 1 or 2 appeals, rather than the endless stream of them, pull the switch. OTOH, if it takes 22yrs to figure stuff out, my suggested time frames would probably result in a huge increase of people put to death. This could result in more potentially innocent people dying. But as I said, 22yrs, is a bit much, IMHO.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

What "Direct physical evidence" do you want? He MURDERED a cop in full view of over THIRTY people.
There ought to be a way, when someone is so obviously guilty, to execute them and save MILLIONS.

And out of those thirty people, the State was able to only get nine eye witnesses, seven of whom later recanted? With thirty people there, nobody was able to get the gun to match to the bullets? All your post does is repeat the prosecution's narrative, there's no proof involved.

Sadly, I did not follow the guy's case. I heard the prosecutor quoted as saying that those who argue his innocence should look at the full case and not just run off of headlines, which is true and I have not done it, so I really can't comment one way or the other about the sufficiency of the evidence.

But I will say that if your only evidence is eyewitness testimony, that alone should be a redflag for reasonable doubt. Eyewitness testimony is ludicrously unreliable. When seven out of nine of those witnesses later recant, and there's no physical evidence, the doubt is glaring.

 

[WC_lun]

I believe that if you take a life in other than the defense of yourself or others, you give up your right to life. However, it is a fact that innocent people have been put on death row and the death penalty is not applied equally. That means that we cannot be sure some people we put to death are guilty. That bothers me on so many levels and is why I changed my opinion from pro-death penalty to anti-death penalty. I do not want the state killing innocent men in my name.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

In the right circumstances, yes, I support the death penalty. And yes, the Innocence Project is a good thing and has certainly done its share of saving the lives of those truely innocent. Again, this begs the question of why it takes that long to figure out if someone is guilty or not. On another note, I have to wonder...were those witnesses really forced into saying certain things, or did they, after giving it thought, decide to change their story, out of fear of retaliation? That happens all the time. People dont say anything, dont want to come forward, because they fear the dirtbags.

Two things:

1) As for why it's taking so long, remember that DNA evidence is, in the long view, still a recent development in criminal investigations. Twenty years ago, DNA (blood, semen, hair samples, etc.) wasn't even viable means of identifying the perpetrator; even when they became available as identification evidence, it took time and wasn't as definitive as it is today. The result is, of course, a lot of the convicted felons who were convicted on witness testimony or circumstantial evidence suddenly have a new claim to make--the hair may have been my color, but it wasn't mine.

2) Those questions your'e asking about why the witnesses are recanting? Are they really doing it because of a change of heart, or are they being pressured? That's called reasonable doubt. When an eyewitness recants, they're either a) telling the truth, meaning they weren't being truthful in their testimony, or b) lying now, which makes them an untrustworthy source. Either way, it's doubt, and when your only evidence is recanted and therefore doubtful testimony, the law states that the conviction should be overturned.

 

[MJS]

Two things:

1) As for why it's taking so long, remember that DNA evidence is, in the long view, still a recent development in criminal investigations. Twenty years ago, DNA (blood, semen, hair samples, etc.) wasn't even viable means of identifying the perpetrator; even when they became available as identification evidence, it took time and wasn't as definitive as it is today. The result is, of course, a lot of the convicted felons who were convicted on witness testimony or circumstantial evidence suddenly have a new claim to make--the hair may have been my color, but it wasn't mine.

When did they start using DNA? I ask because I saw this. If you go down to the bottom where it talks about cases, I see something that mentions 1987 in FL. Then theres this as well. Apparently it was viable then.

2) Those questions your'e asking about why the witnesses are recanting? Are they really doing it because of a change of heart, or are they being pressured? That's called reasonable doubt. When an eyewitness recants, they're either a) telling the truth, meaning they weren't being truthful in their testimony, or b) lying now, which makes them an untrustworthy source. Either way, it's doubt, and when your only evidence is recanted and therefore doubtful testimony, the law states that the conviction should be overturned.

Well, I wasn't there, and I doubt anyone here was, so its nothing but a guess on my part, nothing more. However, fact remains, we hear about people fearing retaliation from gangs, if witnesses testify, so......

Of course, as you said, the witness could have lied, in which case, they should be arrested as well, but thats another thread. So...all that said, if there was no witness, then basically, the guy should have been freed years ago, rather than sitting in jail.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

When did they start using DNA? I ask because I saw this. If you go down to the bottom where it talks about cases, I see something that mentions 1987 in FL. Then theres this as well. Apparently it was viable then.

My recollection maybe off then. I'd believed that frequent, common use of DNA for identification was more recent than that.

 

[Carol]

Of course, as you said, the witness could have lied, in which case, they should be arrested as well, but thats another thread. So...all that said, if there was no witness, then basically, the guy should have been freed years ago, rather than sitting in jail.

Not sure about if he would be freed. In a seperate trial, Troy Davis had already been convicted of shooting another man earlier that night -- with the same gun.

 

[MJS]

My recollection maybe off then. I'd believed that frequent, common use of DNA for identification was more recent than that.

No problem.

Not sure about if he would be freed. In a seperate trial, Troy Davis had already been convicted of shooting another man earlier that night -- with the same gun.

I'm not familiar with that case Carol, but out of curiosity, do you know what the outcome was? I wonder, if there were witnesses, did they do the same thing with the case I linked, ie: change their testimony?

 

[Empty Hands]

Not sure about if he would be freed. In a seperate trial, Troy Davis had already been convicted of shooting another man earlier that night -- with the same gun.

The gun was not recovered.

The point isn't that Davis was definitely innocent. He may well have been guilty. The point was that the circumstances surrounding the case introduced reasonable doubt, especially for a death sentence, but that did not stop the justice system from moving forward. That is a big problem.

 

[Monroe]

When in doubt, don't put the guy on death row. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like that is what's been happening. Besides that, it costs more money doing all these appeals than life without parole. I don't want to waste tax money on murderer's.

 

[Carol]

No problem.



I'm not familiar with that case Carol, but out of curiosity, do you know what the outcome was? I wonder, if there were witnesses, did they do the same thing with the case I linked, ie: change their testimony?

Other than the conviction, I don't know much more. I went looking because I wanted to read about it for myself, but the search engines are saturated with news of his execution.

 

[billc]

And the lovely and talented Ann Coulter puts in her two cents on the death penalty and this case...

http://www.anncoulter.com/

It's nearly impossible to receive a death sentence these days -- unless you do something completely crazy like shoot a cop in full view of dozens of witnesses in a Burger King parking lot, only a few hours after shooting at a passing car while exiting a party.

That's what Troy Davis did in August 1989. Davis is the media's current baby seal of death row.

After a two-week trial with 34 witnesses for the state and six witnesses for the defense, the jury of seven blacks and five whites took less than two hours to convict Davis of Officer Mark MacPhail's murder, as well as various other crimes. Two days later, the jury sentenced Davis to death.

Now, a brisk 22 years after Davis murdered Officer MacPhail, his sentence will finally be administered this week -- barring any more of the legal shenanigans that have kept taxpayers on the hook for Davis' room and board for the past two decades.

(The average time on death row is 14 years. Then liberals turn around and triumphantly claim the death penalty doesn't have any noticeable deterrent effect. As the kids say: Duh.)

And some observations on the case itself:

It has been claimed -- in The New York Times and Time magazine, for example -- that there was no "physical evidence" connecting Davis to the crimes that night.

Davis pulled out a gun and shot two strangers in public. What "physical evidence" were they expecting? No houses were broken into, no cars stolen, no rapes or fistfights accompanied the shootings. Where exactly would you look for DNA? And to prove what?

I suppose it would be nice if the shell casings from both shootings that night matched. Oh wait -- they did. That's "physical evidence."

It's true that the bulk of the evidence against Davis was eyewitness testimony. That tends to happen when you shoot someone in a busy Burger King parking lot.

Eyewitness testimony, like all evidence tending to show guilt, has gotten a bad name recently, but the "eyewitness" testimony in this case did not consist simply of strangers trying to distinguish one tall black man from another. For one thing, several of the eyewitnesses knew Davis personally.

The bulk of the eyewitness testimony established the following:

Two tall, young black men were harassing a vagrant in the Burger King parking lot, one in a yellow shirt and the other in a white Batman shirt. The one in the white shirt used a brown revolver to pistol-whip the vagrant. When a cop yelled at them to stop, the man in the white shirt ran, then wheeled around and shot the cop, walked over to his body and shot him again, smiling.

Some eyewitnesses described the shooter as wearing a white shirt, some said it was a white shirt with writing, and some identified it specifically as a white Batman shirt. Not one witness said the man in the yellow shirt pistol-whipped the vagrant or shot the cop.

Several of Davis' friends testified -- without recantation -- that he was the one in a white shirt. Several eyewitnesses, both acquaintances and strangers, specifically identified Davis as the one who shot Officer MacPhail.

Now the media claim that seven of the nine witnesses against Davis at trial have recanted.

First of all, the state presented 34 witnesses against Davis -- not nine -- which should give you some idea of how punctilious the media are about their facts in death penalty cases.

Among the witnesses who did not recant a word of their testimony against Davis were three members of the Air Force, who saw the shooting from their van in the Burger King drive-in lane. The airman who saw events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone."

Recanted testimony is the least believable evidence since it proves only that defense lawyers managed to pressure some witnesses to alter their testimony, conveniently after the trial has ended. Even criminal lobbyist Justice William Brennan ridiculed post-trial recantations.

Three recantations were from friends of Davis, making minor or completely unbelievable modifications to their trial testimony. For example, one said he was no longer sure he saw Davis shoot the cop, even though he was five feet away at the time. His remaining testimony still implicated Davis.

One alleged recantation, from the vagrant's girlfriend (since deceased), wasn't a recantation at all, but rather reiterated all relevant parts of her trial testimony, which included a direct identification of Davis as the shooter.

Only two of the seven alleged "recantations" (out of 34 witnesses) actually recanted anything of value -- and those two affidavits were discounted by the court because Davis refused to allow the affiants to testify at the post-trial evidentiary hearing, even though one was seated right outside the courtroom, waiting to appear.

The court specifically warned Davis that his refusal to call his only two genuinely recanting witnesses would make their affidavits worthless. But Davis still refused to call them -- suggesting, as the court said, that their lawyer-drafted affidavits would not have held up under cross-examination.

With death penalty opponents so fixated on Davis' race -- he's black -- it ought to be noted that all the above witnesses are themselves African-American. The first man Davis shot in the car that night was African-American.

I notice that the people so anxious to return this sociopathic cop-killer to the street don't live in his neighborhood.

There's a reason more than a dozen courts have looked at Davis' case and refused to overturn his death sentence. He is as innocent as every other executed man since at least 1950, which is to say, guilty as hell.

 

[Twin Fist]

for people that do not support the death penalty, there is NO evidence great enough to justify it or to be called "enough"

 

[billc]

I just heard the author of this article on the criminal murderer Troy Davis on a local radio show. He goes into the facts of the recantation myths and discusses other aspects of the case that have been massaged to give this killer a chance at fooling people into believing he didn't commit the murder. I know he is dead, and that this won't re-kill him, but the anti-death penalty side picked his case as a reason to ban the death penalty, so it should be given a lot of scrutiny as to their tactics.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/27/troy-davis’s-claims-of-innocence-smoke-and-mirrors/

For example, one of the so-called recantations boiled down to this, according to Judge Moore: at the hearing, the eyewitness simply could not recall the facts of the murder—which happened 22 years ago—as well as he could hours after the murder when he gave his statement to the police, and when he testified at trial 21 years ago.
That is not a recantation by any stretch of the imagination. That is reality; the further in time a person gets from an event, the less he can recall about that event. Yet this is one of the blockbuster “recantations” relied upon by the anti-death penalty crowd in this case.
And here is one of the most interesting parts of Judge Moore’s ruling: “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…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.” In other words, his lawyers avoided having their claims about these supposed “recantations” examined by a judge by avoiding having these witnesses questioned in court.