Sitting on death row in Georgia, Troy Davis has won a key victory against his own execution. On Aug. 17, the U.S. Supreme Court instructed a federal court in Georgia to consider, for the first time in a formal court proceeding, significant evidence of Davis’ innocence that surfaced after his conviction. This is the first such order from the U.S. Supreme Court in almost 50 years. Remarkably, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether it is unconstitutional to execute an innocent person.
The order read, in part, “The District Court should receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes petitioner’s innocence.” Behind the order lay a stunning array of recantations from those who originally testified as eyewitnesses to the murder of off-duty Savannah police officer Mark Allen MacPhail on Aug. 19, 1989. Seven of the nine non-police witnesses who originally identified Davis as the murderer of MacPhail have since recanted, some alleging police coercion and intimidation in obtaining their testimony. Of the remaining two witnesses, one, Sylvester “Redd” Coles, is accused by others as the shooter and identified Davis as the perpetrator probably to save himself from arrest.
On the night of the murder, MacPhail was off duty, working as a security guard at a Burger King. A homeless man was being beaten in the parking lot. The altercation drew Davis and others to the scene, along with MacPhail. MacPhail intervened, and was shot fatally with a .38-caliber gun. Later, Coles arrived at the police station, accompanied by a lawyer, and identified Davis as the shooter. The police engaged in a high-profile manhunt, with Davis’ picture splayed across the newspapers and television stations. Davis turned himself in. With no physical evidence linking him to the crime, Davis was convicted and sentenced to death.
Jeffrey Sapp is typical of those in the case who recanted their eyewitness testimony. He said in an affidavit:
“The police ... put a lot of pressure on me to say ‘Troy said this’ or ‘Troy said that.’ They wanted me to tell them that Troy confessed to me about killing that officer ... they made it clear that the only way they would leave me alone is if I told them what they wanted to hear.”
Despite the seven recantations, Georgia’s parole commission has refused to commute Davis’ sentence. Courts have refused to hear the evidence, mostly on procedural grounds. Conservatives like former Georgia Congressman and prosecutor Bob Barr and former FBI Director William Sessions have called for justice in his case, along with Pope Benedict XVI, President Jimmy Carter, the NAACP and Amnesty International.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, “The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.”
Yet conservative Justice Antonin Scalia dissented (with Justice Clarence Thomas), writing that Davis’ case “is a sure loser,” and “[t]his 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.”
Davis has had three execution dates, and in one instance was within two hours of lethal injection. Now he will finally have his day in court. With the courageous support of his sister, Martina Correia (who has been fighting for his life as well as her own—she has stage 4 breast cancer), and his nephew, Antone De’Jaun Correia, who at 15 is a budding human rights activist, Davis may yet defy death. That could lead to a long-overdue precedent in U.S. law: It is unconstitutional to execute an innocent person.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090818_troy_davis_and_the_meaning_...
Puma

1Wow, thanks for posting this, Steph! I will be watching this case!
From the strict text of the Constitution, I would say it is technically Constitutional to execute somebody who is innocent provided they have been give due process of law, but it is the worst kind of idea. What is considered a 'fair' trial or 'due process' is sometimes seriously lacking in justice.
The system is disturbingly twisted. I'm torn by the Supreme Court decision, and I think both sides are right. Is this man's case Constitutional? Probably. Is it right? Probably not.
2I don't care what the constitution says on this topic. To jail, let alone EXECUTE an innocent man is an abomination. How can any human being with an ounce of conscience actually participate, let alone condone such actions.
3If there is any question as to his innocence, his execution should be stayed. If it can be verified that the police truly coercedtestimony, then those police officers should also face serious charges.
4It seems police officers in this country are getting more corrupt and less competent.
5violence, you couldn't be more wrong. We probably have the least corrupt, and most competent cops in American history. We have better ways of documenting any misbehaviour
6I wonder why they sent it to the District Court. That court shouldn't have the authority to overturn the state decision based on an actual innocence claim:
(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
7(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
Violence, a more ignorant statement couldnt be made.
8Very interesting case. To me there is enough evidence to take another look at this case. At the very least, they should put his sentence on hold until this can all be sorted out. With 7 witnesses recanting, I don't see how there isn't enough evidence to look at his conviction again.
9This case makes you wonder how many innocent people have been put to death. The number is probably high enough to shock the most jaded.
10This is one of the reasons why I am against the death penalty. You can release an innocent man from life in prison but you can never bring an executed innocent man back to life.
11I have no doubt in my mind that we have let people die in jail and executed people who are innocent. I wish I had numbers to back that, but it is just my opinion. I do think that if there is a doubt as to a person's guilt or innocence, then a death sentence should be stayed until the doubt can be cleared.
Is it unconsitutional? I have no idea.
12Grandpa, please don't put words into my mouth. I never said that we haven't come a long way. The fact remains that this is a medieval problem to be having in this day and age, in a metropolitan area, no less. My remark was related directly to the article--in particular, the statements concerning police coercion and intimidation scare tactics. With the advances of both forensic science and human compassion today, it absolutely disgusts me that these officers would instead believe the word of two frightened witnesses, both of whom they threatened with jail time, so this article insinuates. I believe that those who are paid for by the people to uphold the law should. That should NOT be too much to ask. The response my comment warranted from CaterpillarGirl was childish and in my opinion highly inappropriate. I think it goes without saying that I'm against the death penalty in any case.
13IMO - There can always be some doubt. The jury is supposed to weigh the evidence and decide if they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty or innocent. Because they are human, it is certainly reasonable to say they can make mistakes. I still like this system better than any other system currently available. I also am for the death penalty.
I would HOPE it's unconstitutional to put an innocent person to death on purpose.
14"Justice Antonin Scalia dissented (with Justice Clarence Thomas), writing that Davis’ case “is a sure loser,” and “[t]his 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.”
Maybe I'm stupid but I don't understand this statement. If seven out of eight witnesses recanted their testimony and their is suspicion of involvment regarding the eighth witness I don't understand how Justices' Scalia and Thomas come to the conclusion that Mr. Davis received a full and fair trial. Second of all he isn't convincing any one of anything. The testimony evidence against Mr. Davis imploded on it self he did no convincing. IMO the truth simply came to light.
15I think if there is any shred of doubt as to a persons innocence, we should not to put them to death.
16I concur, fully!
17I can't imagine what it would be like to be 2hrs away from death by injection and get a stay of exicution.
If he is indeed innocent of the charge I hope this is all resolved soon.
18The state courts as well as the parole board have already reviewed the evidence in question and did not find it convincing. From what I understand, this evidence is a decade old.
19Obviously the case and evidence are old, it happened in 1989.
I'm not sure how courts & a parole board can decide that 7 recantations are not convincing in the face of little physical evidence that Davis was the shooter.
--------------------------
20"Expose thyself to what wretches feel," King Lear said, entering the mud and straw hovel of Poor Tom, "and show the heavens more just."
violence my comment was in response to "It seems police officers in this country are getting more corrupt and less competent" that is certainly not putting words in your mouth. it was a response to your ACTUAL WORDS. NOTHING OUT OF CONTEXT even. Now you may say you worded your comment badly, but not that I put 'words in your mouth"
21There is no taking back an execution. It is bad enough that we find out a man in prison for decades was in fact innocent, and there is no way to give back those years, but we can make some amends, Not so with an execution.
22By all means, defend your Ego, sir. I wrote more in my comment however than the first sentence which you have so meticulously dissected here in a public forum. Ad-hominem attacks are not furthering this discussion.
23I refer you to comment # 5, my response was #6. I copied and pasted the ENTIRE comment, there was in fact nothing more in that comment. Isn't wonderful that we can scroll back to peoples actual words. Since you did not post this blog, and did not make comments #1,2,3 or 4. I have no clue as to what the heck you are referring to. My response was not even ad hominem, since I was directly adressing the posting.
Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
24"It seems police officers in this country are getting more corrupt and less competent."
This is the extint of your comment violence.
"violence, you couldn't be more wrong. We probably have the least corrupt, and most competent cops in American history. We have better ways of documenting any misbehaviour"
Here is GP's reply. How is that an attack?
25Well regardless of whether court is still out on comment #5 I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment. It does seem that more and more investigations are falling victim to professional ego, intent to coerce and human error.
Again as I always say I do believe most officers of the law are genuine law enforcers but the bad apples whether it be sinister or ignorance on their part are really messing up peoples lives IMO.
26hypno, the screening of law enforcement applicants is getting more and more sophisticated. You can now access literally all contacts a law enforcement applicant has had with authorities in any of the 50 states, fingerprinting is now nationwide and everyone that has been fingerprinted by any governmental entity local, state, or national is now available and accessible by computer, back ground checks go from the day you are born to the present, you have to pass a detailed lie detector test. Most if not all jurisdictions require random drug testing, cameras are becoming standard on all police squad cars, The blue wall of silence has collapsed, and an officer can testify against a bad cop, without fear. No system is perfect, but the screening process is as close to perfect as possible.
27The system is as close to perfect as possible? Perhaps a few of the screening techniques you mentioned exist, but do you really believe that they're being used for every single cop? Hardly.
The thing you said about fingerprints taken from all local and state agencies being available by computer nationwide is not true, either. They are slowly working toward it, but it is far from being a reality.
Cameras on squad cars may be more common, but they are not always running, and they catch very limited material. If the officers know they're there, it's not going to stop sophisticated corruption.
And it's naive to think that an officer can testify against a "bad cop" without fear. Especially when entire systems are sometimes corrupted.
I think Violence had it slightly wrong in her comment. The police forces in American history have been so unbelievably violent and corrupt that there's not really anywhere to go but up, but she's right in thinking we still have a long way to go.
28michelen, I know in every major city and every state law enforcement applicant goes through such a screening. I can not vouch that every small town has a similar screening, I agree, but most small towns try to hire sheriffs with prior law enforcement experience, and training. I do know that NYC police training program is considered the best in the world, and any NYC police officer with 5 years experience can be virtually guaranteed to find a similar job in small towns around the country. Oh, and it pisses the NYC hierarchy off no end, because of the cost of training, the whole process takes three years, before you are finished with your training.
29Forty years ago, I would be 100% in agreement with regards to police corruption. It is not because my opinion changed, but because of the changes and improvements in the screening and attitudes within the law enforcement community.
30Perhaps changes are being made in NYC and other major cities, but I haven't seen much evidence that it's a trend sweeping the nation. Or even that it's highly effective in major cities.
31IMO - We feel there is more corruption because we hear about it so much more. Every little office that does a stupid thing is caught on tape anymore.
32We hear it more because of taping, and also because a corrupt officer can not be assured that all his peers will close their eyes and shut their mouths. officers today are also much better educated then ever before.
In NYC for example you can not become a Sgt, without a 2 year degree, and can not become a LT. without a bachelors degree. I know NYC may be considered unique in this, but such requirements are becoming more and more common.
33Of course, those degrees don't keep NYPD officers from shooting plain-clothed or off-duty colleagues, but dagnabbit, they're good.
--------------------------
34"Expose thyself to what wretches feel," King Lear said, entering the mud and straw hovel of Poor Tom, "and show the heavens more just."
Good yes, but not perfect, if it was a perfect world, we would need no law enforcement, heck we would not need laws, now would we?
35This is pretty creepy stuff to think we are killing someone innocent here. I hope justice prevails in this case. God help him now if he's innocent.
36How does having a degree keep you from being corrupt?
From having a husband and father in law in law enforcement, and growing up with uncles and cousins in the field, I would say that the brotherhood of police officers is still very strong and the blue wall still very visible. Some high profile departments may be making changes due to horrific abuses that have been publicized, but to claim that it is systematic and nationwide is incorrect.
With that said, I do not believe that all those in law enforcement are corrupt.
37Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.