Georgia to execute death row inmate tomorrow, who could possibly be innocent

[Sam Spade]

So the cop-killer is gone now.  Good.

[krazen1211]

Are you implying that the jury that sentenced him to die was not majority black? Surely not.

Ah, so if the majority of the jurors are the same race as the defendant, then erroneous testimony and bad evidence is acceptable?

The accusation of racism is certainly curious. The accusation of erroneous testimony naturally held little weight because Davis and his lawyers ensured that it was hearsay.

[krazen1211]

There weren't "dozens of witnesses". There were 9, of whom 7 recanted, one of whom confessed to the crime himself (not something you're likely to do to protect "your homie"). Take your racism elsewhere.

The fact of the matter is that jury convictions, even incredibly unjust jury convictions, are extraordinarily difficult to overturn, to the point of absurdity. The standard of overturning a jury conviction is literal "proof of innocence", which is just plain impossible for the vast majority of innocent convicts. The Supreme Court made their decision 9-0 because the standard of "proof of innocence" is impossible to meet. There may have been twenty years of appeals, but none of those appeals really stood much chance of exonerating the innocent. A big part of the problem is the irrational respect for jury verdicts.

(In answer the original question, declare a mistrial and start all over--he might well have been guilty, but it certainly was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, no death penalty regardless, obviously.)

Correction, since you're playing fast and loose.

Coles did not confess. Rather, others claimed he confessed.

[© Tweed the Younger]

And they say this is the best judicial system in the world?

In fairness, if They actually do say that, then no one actually believes Them.

I can show you a couple hundred million who do

[Guderian]

Another proof of the racist conspiracy:

*chairman of the Georgia Parole Board and vice chairman are... guess what? Black!

*DA who prosecuted Davis is... guess what? Black!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

isn't it time to change the title of this thread?

[Meeker]

http://i.imgur.com/W2F4S.png

[Senator Sbane]

Well, there is one less blackie out there now. Isn't that at least a good thing?

[Senator Sbane]

So the cop-killer is gone now.  Good.

What should be done with killers who are cops? Given the benefit of the doubt, I suppose?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

It is of course ironic that those who most scream and yell about the state having too much power and how government cant get anything right are the same ones who most support (and at times applaud) the state having the power to kill.

I'm glad you have such principled positions, which is why I'm sure you oppose the president who claimed the power to order assassinations of American citizens.

[bore]

Can someone who know about Georgia's judicial system explain me why all the appeals were rejected ? I mean, aren't such high doubts about his guilt a sufficient ground to suspend the procedure ?

What doubts? State had 34 witnesses, including numerous friends and acquaintances. Later some of his homies decided to retract the testimonies to save him from the needle. Post-trial retractions are widely considered laughable as "proofs" of innocence, especially when there are dozens of witnesses who are not retracting.

And by the way the other victim was black just like Davis, just like the majority of jury that sentenced him to death in less than two hours. He lost the SCOTUS appeal 9-0, and never found one single judge in 20 years of trying that would believe his "ONE-ARMED MAN DID IT!!!" nonsense.

I'm pretty sure only 9 witnesses actually accused Davis though the others were just asked questions like when did you here the shot? etc.

[Verily]

There weren't "dozens of witnesses". There were 9, of whom 7 recanted, one of whom confessed to the crime himself (not something you're likely to do to protect "your homie"). Take your racism elsewhere.

The fact of the matter is that jury convictions, even incredibly unjust jury convictions, are extraordinarily difficult to overturn, to the point of absurdity. The standard of overturning a jury conviction is literal "proof of innocence", which is just plain impossible for the vast majority of innocent convicts. The Supreme Court made their decision 9-0 because the standard of "proof of innocence" is impossible to meet. There may have been twenty years of appeals, but none of those appeals really stood much chance of exonerating the innocent. A big part of the problem is the irrational respect for jury verdicts.

(In answer the original question, declare a mistrial and start all over--he might well have been guilty, but it certainly was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, no death penalty regardless, obviously.)

There were 34 witnesses, I suggest you start Googling for relevant legal documents and not Amnesty International & NAACP spin spread through media. You could start with the opinion of Clinton-appointed federal judge William Theodore Moore who found miraculous recantations to be "not credible or partly credible" and the Davis's magic unicorn defense as "largely smoke and mirrors".

9 eyewitnesses, 7 of whom recanted. 25 "other witnesses", most of whom provided meaningless testimony and were just noise to fill the case (not that this is unusual, or even necessarily a bad idea--just that they certainly were not "witnesses" in the colloquial sense).

[realisticidealist]

Just another drop in the unending ocean of humanity's potential for cruelty. If this were an isolated case, I might be outraged, but the sheer number of lives taken at the hands of our culture of cheap death and valueless life has desensitized me far more than I'd care to admit.

[Likely Voter]

It is of course ironic that those who most scream and yell about the state having too much power and how government cant get anything right are the same ones who most support (and at times applaud) the state having the power to kill.

I'm glad you have such principled positions, which is why I'm sure you oppose the president who claimed the power to order assassinations of American citizens.

i do of course

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Ftr, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 did a lot on limiting appeals for people like Troy Davis.

Thnx, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.

[cavalcade]

http://i.imgur.com/W2F4S.png

That's...that's a joke, right?  The relevant difference is that one pled guilty.

[asexual trans victimologist]

So the cop-killer is gone now.  Good.

Why is it that somebody's profession should be relevant to crimes perpetrated against them while off-duty, again, exactly?

[Guderian]

9 eyewitnesses, 7 of whom recanted. 25 "other witnesses", most of whom provided meaningless testimony and were just noise to fill the case (not that this is unusual, or even necessarily a bad idea--just that they certainly were not "witnesses" in the colloquial sense).

You again have no idea what are you talking about. There were 34 witnesses overall and 9 eye-witnesses to MacPhail's murder (Davis was convicted of shooting another random guy earlier that night with the same gun so some of the witnesses were eyewitnesses to that shooting) and 7 witnesses recanted parts of the testimony. Those 7 are pulled from the entire group of 34, not just 9 eyewitnesses to the murder.

[krazen1211]

http://www.gasd.uscourts.gov/pdf/409cv00130_92part1.pdf

http://www.gasd.uscourts.gov/pdf/409cv00130_92part2.pdf



Great opinions from a Democratic recommended judge appointed by a Democratic President confirmed by a Democratic Senate.

[lowtech redneck]

9 eyewitnesses, 7 of whom recanted. 25 "other witnesses", most of whom provided meaningless testimony and were just noise to fill the case (not that this is unusual, or even necessarily a bad idea--just that they certainly were not "witnesses" in the colloquial sense).

You again have no idea what are you talking about. There were 34 witnesses overall and 9 eye-witnesses to MacPhail's murder (Davis was convicted of shooting another random guy earlier that night with the same gun so some of the witnesses were eyewitnesses to that shooting) and 7 witnesses recanted parts of the testimony. Those 7 are pulled from the entire group of 34, not just 9 eyewitnesses to the murder.

I suspect that most posters will choose to ignore this, just as they ignored your earlier post showing some of the reasons why charges of a racist conspiracy are groundless-they already have their minds made up in accordance with their pre-existing assumptions and prejudices.

Whatever one feels about the death penalty, the combined evidence (even without the rather uncredible recantations) show the man to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Given all that is known about the relability of eyewitnesses, I don´t think any case could ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if it depends solely on eyewitnesses.

[ilikeverin]

Given all that is known about the relability of eyewitnesses, I don´t think any case could ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if it depends solely on eyewitnesses.

I'm surprised, Gully; that's an insight that comes from cognitive science!

It's also entirely correct, and it's disgusting that the judicial system hasn't woken up to it.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Given all that is known about the relability of eyewitnesses, I don´t think any case could ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if it depends solely on eyewitnesses.

I'm surprised, Gully; that's an insight that comes from cognitive science!

Oh please, that´s academic gloryhogging for one disclipine. A wide variety of research has shown this to be the case.

And besides, I´m not totally hostile to cognitive science (actually you will be happy to discover I dislike behaviourism even more) just evolutionary pschology and especially it´s "media champions".

[Sibboleth]

Oh please, that´s academic gloryhogging for one disclipine. A wide variety of research has shown this to be the case.

Oral History for the win.

[ilikeverin]

Given all that is known about the relability of eyewitnesses, I don´t think any case could ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if it depends solely on eyewitnesses.

I'm surprised, Gully; that's an insight that comes from cognitive science!

Oh please, that´s academic gloryhogging for one disclipine. A wide variety of research has shown this to be the case.

And besides, I´m not totally hostile to cognitive science (actually you will be happy to discover I dislike behaviourism even more) just evolutionary pschology and especially it´s "media champions".

Oh, good, good.  And you disliking behaviorism more than cog sci makes complete sense, I suppose, when considering that behaviorism denies the existence of inner states at all

So, inform us.  What evidence do you guys bring to the table against eyewitness identification?