| TROY DAVIS TO DIE, BY ONE VOTE | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 18 2009, 12:55 PM (915 Views) | |
| Sydney Carton | Apr 21 2009, 03:45 PM Post #16 |
|
I'll have a number of further comments on the above for now I will only say that in defending this unjust, almost smirking ,decision,Tiidbits pllaces himself in some very strange company but then so do I. ANALYSIS: Joe Biden to Blame for Troy Davis's Fate? By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, The Atlanta Progressive News (April 20, 2009) (APN) ATLANTA -- With the US Court of Appeals panel's split ruling putting Troy Davis again, for the fourth time, on track to be executed by the State of Georgia, the role of 1996 federal death penalty legislation championed by Vice President Joe Biden--then a US Senator from Delaware--comes to light. Davis, whose case has drawn international attention, is on death row for the convicted murder of a Savannah police officer. Davis’s family and attorneys have produced affidavits from 7 out of 9 witnesses recanting their statements at trial, implicating another man as guilty, and alleging police coercion as the reason for why these witnesses testified against Davis in the first place. However, court after court continues to refuse to hear from the witnesses. The two judges making up the majority decision on the panel quote former US Sen. Biden, as well as US Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) in their 50 page explanation. "The vast majority of us... want to and have been trying for years to change the old system to limit the time in which a petition can be filed and to limit the number of petitions that can be filed. So essentially you get one bite out of the apple," then-US Sen. Biden (D-DE) said, according to the 1995 Congressional Record. "The proposal to limit inmates to one bite at the apple is sound in principle," US Sen. Kennedy had said. The judges, in the recent decision against Davis, go on to write that the intent of US Congress is clear and unambiguous, and that they do not want to go against the wishes of Congress. "A lot of Democrats particularly in the 90s were on the tough on crime bandwagon. It was to their advantage to tell the public we're tough on crime," Laura Moye, Southern Regional Deputy Director for Amnesty International USA, told Atlanta Progressive News. Enacted in 1996, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act , among other things, placed limits on the grounds upon which someone on death row could request a new federal hearing. The AEDPA "tightened these limits by requiring successive petitioners to show both cause — or diligence — as well as a fundamental miscarriage of justice — or actual innocence," the majority judges noted. In terms of due diligence, the court asks that the defendant explain why they were not able to bring these claims in their first federal appeal. "The question is, could you have brought this to us earlier," Moye said. "In addition, [the new law] also requires successive petitioners to establish actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, a far more demanding showing," the judges noted. In Davis’s case, the judges’ decision details how Davis and his attorneys did, in fact, present his affidavits in his last round of appeals. However, the judges argue that Davis presented the evidence in the context of a procedural argument concerning due process, and not in the context of actually claiming innocence. The judges cite federal law and previous courts’ interpretations to argue that Davis should have presented his innocence claims first, and that if he lost, he could have then appealed on procedural grounds. However, they argue he cannot do the reverse. "We must consider whether Davis has made a prima facie showing establishing the first requirement… whether the factual predicate for his [innocence] claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence," the judges wrote. "What matters… is whether [Davis], with the exercise of due diligence, could have discovered [the facts he now presents to us] at the time he filed his first federal habeas petition." "Davis suggests that he was diligent in gathering the new evidence underlying his [innocence] claim because he brought this very evidence to the first federal habeas court," they wrote. "The problem with this argument, however, is that he did not present evidence of actual innocence to the district court in support of a Herrera freestanding actual innocence claim. Rather, he used this evidence only to argue that, under Schlup, he could overcome the procedural default of the other constitutional claims he sought to pursue." "They're penalizing him for not playing the game exactly properly… by saying, why didn't you bring up this claim at that time?" Moye said, "At a time when the federal government cut the state resource centers [for indigent defense] and two attorneys were representing about 80 people." "They have this standard that’s not attainable in real life," Moye said. Moye questions the judge’s separate consideration of the constitutional error and the innocence claim. "Isn't it a constitutional error to be innocent on death row? The fact you would need some kind of supporting argument to being innocent seems ludicrous," Moye said. Judge Rosemary Barkett dissented from the majority opinion. "This case highlights the difficulties in navigating AEDPA’s thicket of procedural brambles," Barkett wrote. "While we must deal with the thorny constitutional and statutory questions before us, we also cannot lose sight of the underlying issue in this case." "Simply put, the issue is whether Troy Anthony Davis may be lawfully executed when no court has ever conducted a hearing to assess the reliability of the score of affidavits that, if reliable, would satisfy the threshold showing for a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence, thus entitling Davis to habeas relief." "To execute Davis, in the face of a significant amount of proffered evidence that may establish his actual innocence, is unconscionable and unconstitutional," Barkett wrote. "The majority takes the position that we cannot permit Davis to bring his evidence before the district court because our discretion to do so is constrained by AEDPA. But AEDPA cannot possibly be applied when to do so would offend the Constitution and the fundamental concept of justice that an innocent man should not be executed," Barkett wrote. "In this case, the circumstances do not fit neatly into the narrow procedural confines delimited by AEDPA. But it is precisely this type of occasion that warrants judicial intervention," Barkett wrote. Moye argues Davis’s case highlights the problems with AEDPA and the death penalty in general. "The fundamental problem with the death penalty is, at what point do you limit somebody's access to the justice system, when you have a system of punishment that's irreversible?" Moye said. "What level of risk of executing an innocent person is acceptable? So if you speed up the process, you increase the likelihood of horrific error. It's inherently problematic," Moye said. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? Amnesty International and Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty have set an emergency day of worldwide action for May 19, 2009, to include a demonstration at the Georgia Capitol. Meanwhile, the federal appeals court issued a 30 day stay, which would be lifted on May 16, in which time Davis can appeal to the Supreme Court of the US. "They were trying to bump it back to the US Supreme Court like they didn't want to deal with it," Moye said. "We're encouraging people to keep sending letters to the governor," Moye said. If the Supreme Court of the US does not intervene, the State of Georgia could execute Troy Davis as early as June 2009. "The odds [of Supreme Court intervention] are very, very bad, but it's not an impossibility. They would be going to the Supreme Court now with this sort of stand-alone innocence claim. The Supreme Court could take a look at AEDPA and maybe they could make some sort of decision about whether part or all of law is unconstitutional," Moye said. "Or they could say they disagree with the 11th Circuit decision, that [proving] an additional constitution error is not needed," Moye said. "Or they could disagree on the due diligence issue." |
 |
 
|
| Tidbits | Apr 21 2009, 06:38 PM Post #17 |
|
Yes, the law is the basis for the decision. Some don't like the law. |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Apr 22 2009, 05:27 PM Post #18 |
|
"Simply put, the issue is whether Troy Anthony Davis may be lawfully executed when no court has ever conducted a hearing to assess the reliability of the score of affidavits that, if reliable, would satisfy the threshold showing for a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence, thus entitling Davis to habeas relief." "To execute Davis, in the face of a significant amount of proffered evidence that may establish his actual innocence, is unconscionable and unconstitutional," Barkett wrote. "The majority takes the position that we cannot permit Davis to bring his evidence before the district court because our discretion to do so is constrained by AEDPA. But AEDPA cannot possibly be applied when to do so would offend the Constitution and the fundamental concept of justice that an innocent man should not be executed," Barkett wrote. TB Yes, the law is the basis for the decision. Some don't like the law. SC Because some may,in fact, idealise the Law four of the last ten judges who have heard this case are sick with shame at what some of their colleagues will do to enforce what the surviving jurors freely recognize to be a false conviction. I assume that the observation about "trickery" was aimed at the majority,not the moral,dissenting justices. Trickery? The State of Georgia allots an impoverished defendant all of one thousand dollars to conduct a defense in a capital case.Troy Davis's then state appointed attorneys were running up to seventy-nine other cases simultaneously. Despite the utter financial impoverishment of the defense,the fury of the entire Georgia law enforcement establishment,and the ominous presence of the untouchable Red Coles and his mobsters,twenty-six people have volunteered evidence for the defendant. Repeat: "Simply put, the issue is whether Troy Anthony Davis may be lawfully executed when no court has ever conducted a hearing to assess the reliability of the score of affidavits that, if reliable, would satisfy the threshold showing for a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence, thus entitling Davis to habeas relief." "To execute Davis, in the face of a significant amount of proffered evidence that may establish his actual innocence, is unconscionable and unconstitutional." |
|
|
|
| Tidbits | Apr 23 2009, 12:57 AM Post #19 |
|
Quoting the dissent stridently is an interesting tactic. |
|
|
|
| Tidbits | Apr 23 2009, 01:02 AM Post #20 |
|
Possibly trickery, of course, was a reference to the attorneys who handled the Federal Habeas. Why did the no argue "innocence" as a substantive claim? Trickery? Tactics? Strategy? Futility? Ineptitude? Other reasons? It was required, or it is forfeited. SC, why didn't they make the claim? |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | May 20 2009, 04:03 PM Post #21 |
|
Updated: 10:20 a.m. May 20, 2009 Rally at Capitol against Troy Davis execution Final appeal filed with Supreme Court in case where witnesses recanted By BILL RANKIN The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Monday, May 18, 2009 Death-row inmate Troy Anthony Davis filed a last-ditch appeal Tuesday to the U.S. Supreme Court, and a rally to protest his execution was held Tuesday night at the state Capitol. The rally was organized by Amnesty International. Special to Atlanta Journal Constitution Davis’ attorneys asked the high court to send Davis’ case back to a federal judge for an evidentiary hearing on his innocence claims. He was convicted of killing a Savannah police officer 20 years ago. “Davis’ new evidence eviscerates the state’s case against him,” the filing said. “Despite substantial new evidence of his innocence, no court has ever held a hearing to assess the scores of new witnesses that show Mr. Davis is innocent.” The petition says that carrying out Davis’ execution without a “full and fair hearing in which he could make a truly persuasive demonstration that he is actually innocent” would be unconstitutional. Davis, 40, sits on death row for the killing of off-duty Officer Mark Allen MacPhail. The 27-year-old former Army ranger was shot three times before he could draw his weapon. He was responding to the wails of a man being pistol whipped in a Burger King parking lot. Since Davis’ 1991 trial, seven of nine state witnesses have recanted their testimony and other witnesses have implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles as the shooter. Coles was at the scene at the time of the shooting and the first person to implicate Davis in the killing. Davis is filing an unusual petition for a writ of habeas corpus directly to the Supreme Court. It is through these lawsuits, almost always filed in lower courts and then appealed to the high court, that an inmate can bring a constitutional claim. The last time the court granted relief to such an extraordinary petition was in 1925, Jason Ewart, one of Davis’ attorneys, said. This involved Philip Grossman, who was serving time for contempt even though he had been granted a presidential pardon. The high court ordered Grossman’s release. Since then, however, the high court has sent some cases back to federal court judges, directing them to conduct hearings, he said. “This is the last court that we can go to,” Ewart said. “It’s something that’s not often granted, but we think this is an exceptional case.” Davis’ innocence claims have attracted worldwide attention. Former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI and former FBI Director William Sessions have asked that Davis be spared death by lethal injection. Amnesty International is holding a rally on Davis’ behalf Tuesday afternoon at the state Capitol. Chatham County prosecutors, who tried Davis, have long expressed confidence that Davis was the triggerman. Larry Chisolm, who became Chatham’s new DA in January, declined comment Monday on the substance of prior court rulings or the facts of Davis’ case. “He’s not going to take any action at all until all appeals are exhausted,” Lydia Sermons, a spokesman for the DA’s office, said Monday. Davis’ Supreme Court petition notes that the only two eyewitnesses who have not recanted their trial testimony are Coles, who later told police he had a .38 caliber revolver on the night of the shooting, and Stephen Sanders, who was at the Burger King with his Air Force buddies. Two hours after the shooting, Sanders told police he could not recognize anyone at the scene except by their clothes. At the trial two years later, Sanders identified Davis as the killer. Davis’ recantation evidence is exceptional and warrants intervention by the high court, his petition says. “Few — if any — recantation cases involve consistent, multiple recantations from state witnesses who were innocent bystanders to the crime,” the petition says. In past years, Davis has come extraordinarily close to being executed and to getting relief in the courts. Davis’ execution had previously been set three times but he was granted stays each time — once in 2007 less than 24 hours before he was to be put to death. Davis has lost his bid for a new evidentiary hearing in two important court rulings, both decided by one-vote margins. In March 2008, the Georgia Supreme Court turned him down in a 4-3 decision. A month ago, the federal appeals court in Atlanta rejected Davis’ appeal by a 2-1 vote. On April 16, the two federal appeals court judges in the majority said they viewed the recantations with skepticism and, after reviewing Davis’ claims, “remain unpersuaded.” In dissent, Judge Rosemary Barkett said to execute Davis in the face of the new evidence “is unconscionable and unconstitutional.” The court kept in place Davis’ stay of execution for another 30 days. That expired Saturday. — |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Jun 3 2009, 02:24 PM Post #22 |
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And here is the latest word from Amnesty.Savannah has a new District Attorney who just might be willing to re-open a factual investigation at grass roots level.Thiis would seem to be the most hoonorable solution all around.I hope every reader here will send off a letter to the city official involved.There will be plenty of opposition from the local Police Department which took the original statements from the seven recanting witnesses(one of whom ,at least, recanted before the original trial). The Appellate Courts have perhaps spent too much tiime on the recanters in relation to their trial testimony.They should have spent more time on what they said at the time of their original pre-trial statements.It is our amateur and unofficial opinion that a perusal of the pre-trial statements will bear out the post-trial claims that intimidation was used to procure identifications which the witnesses were in no position to make. When,for example, did Joseph Holloway first tell the Atlanta police that he saw Cole do the killing? We would also like to see much more about statements from witnesses who attended the party where another shooting (of which Davis was also convicted) occurred earlier that same evening.These witnesses seem to have been almost completely ignored by the police at the time of the shootings but at least two of them have since given strong evidence in support of Davis.The hostess at the party now swears that she went directly from the scene of the first shooting to Red Cole (why?) who then walked her to the scene of the second shooting(why?) and that she saw him holding the same caliber of gun used in both shootings on his way to the scene of the murder. Cole (but only since she filed her new evidence )admitted that he was packing the same make revolver as was used in both the maiming and the killing and deliberately omitted to say so in the original statement which launched the man hunt for Davis. Amnesty writes: snip The Supreme Court will soon look at Troy Davis' petition for a new trial. While we will be disappointed if the courts once again fail to intervene in a case that is so overwhelmed with doubt and a lack of evidence, Troy needs us to keep knocking on doors until one finally opens up. Savannah's new District Attorney, Larry Chisolm, elected in 2008 on similar principles as President Obama, could be that opportunity. During Chisolm's bid for District Attorney, he laudably pledged to "increase the sense of fairness and transparency in the prosecution function." If there ever was a case that required both fairness and transparency, then this is it. Urge District Attorney Chisolm to make good on his pledge by re-opening Troy's case. At the heart of this case is a brutal murder of a police officer that could go unpunished if an innocent man is put to death. The District Attorney has the power to re-open the investigation into this crime for which Troy was convicted. Only once we have all the facts on the table, can the courts truly begin to assess the fate of Troy Davis. At this point, no court has bothered to answer: why seven of nine prosecution witnesses have recanted or contradicted their testimony? why no physical evidence links Troy to the murder? why one of the two final witnesses has been implicated in many sworn statements as the real killer of officer Mark MacPhail? Ask District Attorney Chisolm to re-open the investigation to uncover the truth behind officer MacPhail's murder. You only have to look to May 19th, the Global Day of Action for Troy Davis, to grasp just how much more there is to this case than meets the eye. Supporters across the U.S. joined voices with advocates from 14 different countries around the globe to demand real action for Troy. Your actions continue to mean so much. In fact, Troy Davis and his sister, Martina Correia, were so touched by the outpouring of your support that they joined a call with Amnesty activists and staff to give their 'thank yous' in person. Listen to Troy Davis' message to Amnesty activists (MP3). We don't know how much longer this fight for Troy's life is going to last. But as long as there are people who can intervene to save Troy's life, then we will keep pushing for justice. Remind District Attorney Chisolm there is still time to make good on his pledge. SC: Please send your letters at once. Davis may have very little time.The Supreme Court will consider his case sometime around Juuuuuunue 23rd but,as pointed out earlier,his chances (on technical grounds) of getting a full hearing are extremely thin. The NAACP now says that it is going to launch a full protest -which is about as hypocritical on their as what Al Sharpton did in Durham and Jena(among many other places).The original investigation was conducted by black cops under a black police chief ,a black mayor and five black jurors. Davis ,even if guilty,was clearly convicted by a botched investigation that called for a quick patsy while ignoring the most obvious suspect-a black gang lord with major ties to local law enforcement. We know that at least four of the surviving jurors want their verdict reversed, unless these are all four of the five black jurors there are no grounds for claiming Davis is the victim of racial discrimination.His case,in fact, only goes what everyone here already knows.Southern Black Power can be as corrupt as Southern White Power and it is generally,because neaveau, even more clumsy and heavy handed. Edited by Sydney Carton, Jun 3 2009, 02:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 3 2009, 02:37 PM Post #23 |
|
Which is always the question I would have put to those about to lynch someone in the old South: what if you have the wrong man? The real killer/rapist will still be free, and able to commit more crimes.
Since he's new to his position and the decay of office-holding hasn't got to him yet, he may actually attempt to do something... |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Jun 20 2009, 03:12 PM Post #24 |
|
Los Angeles Times By Richard Fausset June 3, 2009 Reporting from Savannah, Ga. -- Larry Chisolm, the first black district attorney in Chatham County, Ga., was sitting in his modern, sixth-floor office, tolerating an interview but declining to speak about the problem that he may have to address soon -- the one that could come to define and complicate the rest of his young political career. It is a problem he inherited. The problem of death row inmate Troy Davis. snip In recent years, recantations from key witnesses -- and Davis' inability to win a new trial -- have made the case an international cause celebre, sparking European street demonstrations and calls for a new day in court from former President Carter, a Democrat, and former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, a Republican. But now, as Davis' execution looks increasingly likely, the advocates for a new case are turning their attention to Savannah's newly elected prosecutor. The local NAACP chapter is imploring Chisolm to get involved. Carter sent him a letter recently, as did the Congressional Black Caucus. "It is up to principled leaders like you to take the actions necessary to ensure that flaws are corrected, that wrongs are righted, and that justice prevails over injustice," said the caucus' letter, whose signatories included a Georgia civil rights icon, Democratic Rep. John Lewis. If Chisolm -- a trim, fastidious 49-year-old with a quiet, measured voice -- was feeling the pressure on a hot Thursday afternoon, he didn't let on. As to whether he has the power to intervene, he said, smiling, "When you find that out would you let me know?" Some of Davis' supporters say that Chisolm indeed has the ability to intervene -- and they predict that he will have to make a decision soon. Though Davis has a petition pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, his lawyer, Jason Ewart, admits the filing is "a longshot." An execution date has not been set; the high court could rule on the petition as early as this month. If, as expected, the petition is denied, observers say that could leave Chisolm with a vexing choice. He could ask the state parole board to postpone the execution and open a new investigation, as Davis' attorneys have requested. That would be a bold move for a rookie elected official: Both the Georgia Supreme Court and the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Davis a new trial, in part because courts view recantations as inherently suspect. [Both decisions were by one vote,with the Chief Justice dissenting in the first case and the dissenting justice in the Federal Court claiming that her colleagues were acting "unconstitutionally".] Reopening the case could also risk alienating white and conservative voters and complicate Chisolm's relationship with the police force. But if Chisolm fails to intervene, "that would be very unpopular to a lot of black folk," said the Rev. Matthew Southall Brown, a longtime black leader in Savannah. "All eyes are on him to see what he's going to do, and how he's going to handle this thing," said Brown, 77, the pastor emeritus of St. John Baptist Church. "It's a Catch-22 for him. . . . You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't." Though it has earned global attention, it is difficult to gauge how potent the Davis case is here. Savannah is an old-fashioned place that prizes gentility and manners, and even local activists say it's no hotbed of public demonstration. Moreover, the Davis saga has played out at a near-glacial pace. It was nearly two decades ago when Officer Mark MacPhail rushed across the dark parking lot to aid an African American homeless man who was being pistol-whipped by another man. Someone fatally shot MacPhail before he could help. In court, nine witnesses testified against Davis. But seven of those witnesses began recanting their testimony in 2000 -- nine years after the trial. New witnesses have emerged who assert that a man other than Davis was the shooter, according to court filings from Davis' attorneys. Prince A. Jackson Jr., head of the Savannah branch of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, said that his group didn't get involved early on because the case against Davis seemed so strong: "It was almost open and shut," he said. But the group has changed course over time. In hindsight, Jackson now says, the case was a "rush to judgment," brought on in part by the fact that the officer was white. Over the years, former Dist. Atty. Spencer Lawton Jr. -- who was portrayed unfavorably by author John Berendt in the nonfiction murder mystery "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" -- stood by his prosecution of Davis. Chisolm worked in his office as an assistant prosecutor from 1987 to 2006, but was not involved in the Davis case. When Lawton announced he would retire in 2008, Chisolm decided to run on the Democratic ticket, even though Lawton, a 28-year veteran of the office, had handpicked Republican David Lock, his chief assistant, to be his successor. Chisolm won the race over Lock in November with 54% of the vote, thanks in part to large black turnout for Barack Obama. The achievement of the hometown lawyer generated pride among blacks in this Old South city. Chisolm's father was a maintenance man at Savannah State University, the local black college. Chisolm left Savannah for Duke University, where he attended law school. He returned home to a city where many black residents continue live in dire conditions amid charming, tourist-friendly historic squares. According to the 2000 census, 34% of black children in the Savannah metropolitan area live in poverty. "It gave hope to all the other young African Americans who have ambitions and want to move up the ladder," Jackson said. Even as he pressures Chisolm to intervene in the Davis case, Jackson, like the Rev. Brown, admits that the new D.A. is "between a rock and a hard place." In the interview, Chisolm spoke generally about the death penalty, saying he supports it because it is Georgia law. He said he sought it twice as an assistant D.A., with both cases ending in life sentences. Chisolm said he wouldn't speak about the Davis case until all appeals were exhausted. And yet he did offer one comment: He noted that Officer MacPhail died coming to the aid of an African American. "He put his life at risk to try to save the life of a black man," he said. "And that's a story in and of itself in terms of race, and where Savannah is in terms of race relations." snip |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Jun 25 2009, 01:46 PM Post #25 |
|
Troy Davis is before the Supreme Court today.The Court is expected to rule,at the latest, by June 29th.If he wins,it will be the first time since the late 1920's that the Court acted on a similar petition.His last chance is that the local prosecutor will re-open an investigation as to how the police first procured the testimony of the recantiing witnesses,and,further,as to whether the police suppressed , or ignored, exculpatory evidence from a total of approximately twenty additional witnesses who could give evidence tending to show that the states star witness himself committed the crime for which Davis is to be executed. This is a completely different issue from whether or not the recantations should have been heard in the higher court.It is a question to whethet Davis's conviction was obtained by police corruption and prosecutorial misconduct.Even if Davis is executed on a legal technicality,the ground is still open for Savannah to clean its own house.Preferably it will do this before the State executes a not improbably innocent man. " If you have not yet signed the on-line petition at www.iamtroy.com, please do so now, as these petitions will be printed and hand delivered on Monday morning. Here's the other thing you can do right now to help save Troy's life: Please call Georgia's Chatham County District Attorney Larry Chisolm at 912-652-7308 and ask that he reopen Troy's case." You good people gave DCR thousands of calls.Give Troy Davis just one each. Even those who believe Davis is guilty should be happy to signthe petition .If the officers who took the original statements are produced and they have contemporary notes to support their statements, well and good.If Red Coles is produced and he is able to explain his three alleged confessions,if he is able to explain why he concealed the fact that he carried a 38 revolver wiith him to the scene of the murder,and if he is able to explain why,despite his considerable clout iin Savannah gangland,he has been identified by more than one witness as the actual triggerman,well and good.But unless this investigation is held Davis's execution will constitute a mockery of the American judicial process and will also feed the causes of some of the most despicable race hustlers on the American political scene today. If Davis does not arose your compassion,at the least don't give Sharpton and the Mummia people a chance to make out of this what the Communist Party made out of Scotsboro.The only way to avoid that is to hold an open inquiry of the enitre case at the grass roots level where it all began and where it can still be most effectively adjudicated. Edited by Sydney Carton, Jun 25 2009, 05:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Jun 29 2009, 12:08 PM Post #26 |
|
The Supreme Court adjourns on Wednesday.They hear Davis today. Over the weekend 10,000 local citizens sent in a petition asking the DA to open a full investigation into how the testimony was obtained.It is estimated that another 70,000 signatures have come in from abroad.No count down on the rest of America. Though little noted 26 former prosecutors and congressmen also sent in a request in late May asking that the new DA take action on behalf of the defendant. Interviews with the jurors here: http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared-gen/ap/National/US_Georgia_Execution_Jurors_Doubts.html?cxntlid=inform_artr Three dead,four recanting,two damn proud of what they did,and the rest not talking. One guy says none of the reliablle witnesses have changed their evidence.That must mean that he thinks the onlly reliable witnesses are gangster Red Cole and one other guy.But even there he is wrong.They both changed their testimony same as the seven. Cole belatedly admitted (after he was cornered by several new witnesses )that he did pack a 38 to the scene of the crime.The casings are probably from a 38.(I haven't been able to find some little known ballistic evidence that may challenge this on line).Cole has never denied(certainly never under oath) that he has made three separate confessions. The second guy "who never changed his testimony" is on court record as stating that he couldn't identify anybody but at the trial two years later he changed his testimonny and fed the prosecution the quickie identification which it needed to hear. There were five black jurors at the original trial.It is not stated in the article iif the two are black or white. |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Jun 30 2009, 02:59 PM Post #27 |
|
Great news.(At least I hope that it will be great news ro you all.) The Supreme Court did nothing,which means Davis has a new lease on life till at least mid-September.Somebody up there(I mean on the Court) likes him but can't get enough votes, yet ,to muster a full hearing. After all the defense is invokiing a federal statute which exists but has not been utilized since 1928.Personally I believed that Davis was going down. And while nobody is promising anything the very fact that they postponed what looked like the inevitable indicates that hope sprinnnngs eternal. Hey,with Ginsberg and Stevens twice recently concurring with Scalia,there is telling what strange eventful thing might yet happen. Meanwhile back in Savannah,the signatures and phone calls are still piling in at the new DA's office.(A thousand fresh ones from the home folk since yesterday afternoon).He could open a new investigation;he could even move to put the death warrant into effect. But,as of a couple of hours ago,Chisholm's position remains unchanged he will not act until the court acts. http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2009/06/30/troy_davis.html Edited by Sydney Carton, Jun 30 2009, 03:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Aug 19 2009, 03:35 PM Post #28 |
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SC: Well,Troy Daviis just had another close call but he will ,after twenty years, finally get an eviderntiary hearing before a federal judge,as the majority of the Supreme Court ordered Monday.Davis has been consistently losing by a single vote the llast three times around.Apparently someone at the very top dramatically reversed themselves;but I doubt that we will ever hear that story in full. updated 11:52 a.m. EDT, Mon August 17, 2009 By Bill Mears CNN Supreme Court Producer WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has granted a condemned Georgia inmate's request that his execution be delayed as he attempts to prove his innocence. snip Justice John Paul Stevens on Monday ordered a federal judge to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer supported the decision. Sonia Sotomayor, who was sworn in August 8 as the newest member of the high court, did not take part in the petition. Davis' case has had a dramatic series of ups and downs in the past year. He was granted a stay of execution by the Supreme Court two hours before he was to be put to death last fall. A month later, the justices reversed course and allowed the execution to proceed, but a federal appeals court then issued another stay. The high court's latest ruling means Davis will continue to sit on death row. Stevens said the risk of putting a potentially innocent man to death "provides adequate justification" for another evidentiary hearing. His supporters in June delivered petitions bearing about 60,000 signatures to Chatham County, Georgia, District Attorney Larry Chisolm, calling for a new trial. Chisolm is the county's first African-American district attorney. snip Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas objected to the court's decision Monday, calling it a "fool's errand." "Petitioner's claim is a sure loser," wrote Scalia. "Transferring his petition to the [federal] District Court is a confusing exercise that can serve no purpose except to delay the state's execution of its lawful criminal judgment." SC: Several cautions(1) Davis will have the burden of proving his innocence.(2)An investigation by the local DA would have had the effect of opening much evidence concderning the original pre-trial investigation; any such potential evidence will not be available to the defense in the forthcoming hearing(3) What the higher court orders and what the defendant actually gets in the lower court may be two quite different things.Consider the case of Jeffrey MacDonald(under "Past Cases" here).The North Carolina Federal Court has been under orders for years from the Appellate Court to conduct a full evidentiary hearing but the local politicoes continue to block the defendant. |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Aug 19 2009, 03:35 PM Post #29 |
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SC: Well,Troy Daviis just had another close call but he will ,after twenty years, finally get an eviderntiary hearing before a federal judge,as the majority of the Supreme Court ordered Monday.Davis has been consistently losing by a single vote the llast three times around.Apparently someone at the very top dramatically reversed themselves;but I doubt that we will ever hear that story in full. updated 11:52 a.m. EDT, Mon August 17, 2009 By Bill Mears CNN Supreme Court Producer WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has granted a condemned Georgia inmate's request that his execution be delayed as he attempts to prove his innocence. snip Justice John Paul Stevens on Monday ordered a federal judge to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer supported the decision. Sonia Sotomayor, who was sworn in August 8 as the newest member of the high court, did not take part in the petition. Davis' case has had a dramatic series of ups and downs in the past year. He was granted a stay of execution by the Supreme Court two hours before he was to be put to death last fall. A month later, the justices reversed course and allowed the execution to proceed, but a federal appeals court then issued another stay. The high court's latest ruling means Davis will continue to sit on death row. Stevens said the risk of putting a potentially innocent man to death "provides adequate justification" for another evidentiary hearing. His supporters in June delivered petitions bearing about 60,000 signatures to Chatham County, Georgia, District Attorney Larry Chisolm, calling for a new trial. Chisolm is the county's first African-American district attorney. snip Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas objected to the court's decision Monday, calling it a "fool's errand." "Petitioner's claim is a sure loser," wrote Scalia. "Transferring his petition to the [federal] District Court is a confusing exercise that can serve no purpose except to delay the state's execution of its lawful criminal judgment." SC: Several cautions(1) Davis will have the burden of proving his innocence.(2)An investigation by the local DA would have had the effect of opening much evidence concderning the original pre-trial investigation; any such potential evidence will not be available to the defense in the forthcoming hearing(3) What the higher court orders and what the defendant actually gets in the lower court may be two quite different things.Consider the case of Jeffrey MacDonald(under "Past Cases" here).The North Carolina Federal Court has been under orders for years from the Appellate Court to conduct a full evidentiary hearing but the local politicoes continue to block the defendant. |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Aug 19 2009, 04:14 PM Post #30 |
|
Scalia's dissenton the Davis case. is a real shocker.It sadly comes from a mind which I otherwise have frequently admired: “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. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.” Allen Dershowitz(who behaved pretty badly himself at the first John Denjanjuk trial)comments: ...... these words appeared in a dissenting opinion issued by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on Monday. Let us be clear precisely what this means. If a defendant were convicted, after a constitutionally unflawed trial, of murdering his wife, and then came to the Supreme Court with his very much alive wife at his side, and sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (namely that his wife was alive), these two justices would tell him, in effect: “Look, your wife may be alive as a matter of fact, but as a matter of constitutional law, she’s dead, and as for you, Mr. Innocent Defendant, you’re dead, too, since there is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you’re innocent.” daily beast.com August 18. Durham in Wonderland likewise picked this up. Edited by Sydney Carton, Aug 19 2009, 04:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
4:58 AM Nov 24
