What do you think?

[Arkan]

There has been a story in the news lately about a Georgian man who was convicted of killing a police officer, and he has been ordered to be executed sometime next week. However, new evidence suggests that this man may be innocent, with several key witnesses retracting their statements, as well as naming another man. Still, the judge denies this new evidence or a retrial, and the man is still to be executed, barring a successful appeal of the state supreme court. Here is an article about it:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070714/ap_on_...4UNTPceUG4EtbAF

 

What do you think about this situation?

[Krookie]

Well, I think that the guy might be innocent, and that the judge will probably feel like a jerkhead if the guy is executed and then proven innocent.

 

There was a story on the news a few days ago about some guy who was charged with the murder+rape of some girl, and put in jail for like the rest of his life. 18 years later some peice of hair on the girls shirt proves him innocent.

[Walsingham]

I'm confused. This piece doesn't reallys et out the different cases very well. The witnesses are confused about what happened, which is fine. Because some cases are like that. Particularly where you've got anything out of the ordinary happening.

 

It's not clear to me who if anyone is alleged to have even been present at the shooting. Nor is there any indication of who was beating the unfortunate homeless man. Were both Dunn and Troy Davis there? What motive had they for shooting a bystander anyway? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

In particular I don't understand how the judge can rule witnesses hearing Coles confess as hearsay when witnesses testifying to Davis confession were allowed to stand in the original trial.

 

We might also give some thought to Coles, who must be pretty miffed about getting dragged into a case he would have thought closed many years ago.

[Laozi]

The innocent die all the time, especially when playing squash against this guy:

 

 

Edited July 15, 2007 by Laozi

[Hiro Protagonist]

As long as I'm alive, I'm against the death penalty. And yeah, poor guy. Sucks to be him.

 

If he's innocent, the judge and jury should be brought up on manslaughter charges.

[Aram]

Eh. If it turn out the guy is innocent, we can always execute the judge.

 

Unless of course some piece of evidence proves the innocent man guilty at the last minute.

[Fenghuang]

Collateral damage.

[tarna]

If he's innocent, the judge and jury should be brought up on manslaughter charges.

Interesting point of view! I'm normally pro-death penalty but do enjoy the idea of 'court-arena' where all involved must prove their innocence before bearing witness to an event. Failure to do so and finding that a 'witness' has a vested interest in the trial allows the 'Legum' to kill the witness on the spot.

 

That's gotta keep the witnesses on the 'straight and narrow'!

 

Judges are not exempt either! A judge could be killed on the spot by a Legum that showed him to flying under false affilliation. How much Pay-ola is your life worth Judge? Remember...your appointment is only 'for life'.

 

It's a shame that this can't be applied to our political system as well.

 

( I guess I'm still pro-death penalty...just looking forward to increasing it's numbers. :wink: Just thinning the herd of hypocrits. )

[Meshugger]

I am curious on what ground the judge denied retrial. What the requirements for a retrial in Georgia? Someone else confesses?

[Pop]

So far as I'm aware, here in America new evidence, even that which exonerates a defendant, is not both necessary and sufficient to warrant a retrial. Can't imagine why. Maybe they're afraid of legal gridlock.

[taks]

actually, _new_ evidence is required, and it needs to meet a pretty stiff standard to qualify as necessary and sufficient. typically, witnesses recanting their testimony is not considered either. if the prosecution felt the recant was legit, however, and pursued another suspect, trying and then convicting said suspect, that may qualify. grommy probably has a better read on such situations.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

actually, _new_ evidence is required, and it needs to meet a pretty stiff standard to qualify as necessary and sufficient. typically, witnesses recanting their testimony is not considered either. if the prosecution felt the recant was legit, however, and pursued another suspect, trying and then convicting said suspect, that may qualify. grommy probably has a better read on such situations.

 

taks

 

 

Naive question, possibly: would the state pursue another suspect when they've already got a conviction?

[taks]

yes, though not often. if you manage to convince the prosecutor something is afoul it can happen. rare at best, but so is the death penalty to begin with.

 

the problem with reading a news article on such a subject is that you have no idea what _all_ the other evidence is. a judge will weigh that in his decision, because he gets to see it all. if he determines that the primary reason for the conviction was actually otherwise not dependent upon the testimony, it won't get overturned. he may also decide that perhaps the witnesses changed their stories because of a guilty conscience, or pressure from anti death penalty groups, etc. that's why original testimony is deemed "correct" vs. later recants (remember, 12 people heard the evidence and testimony and ultimately had to decide its truthfulness before the conviction in the first place). judges are loathe to tell juries that they were wrong.

 

taks

[Enoch]

Naive question, possibly: would the state pursue another suspect when they've already got a conviction?

I only took just enough criminal law to get through law school (i.e., one class in my first year and then a couple days of review classes before the Bar exam), but based on that and the occasional Law & Order rerun, the answer is yes. However, I recall that most states will allow the defense in the second case to present as evidence the fact that someone else has been convicted of this crime. If the prosecution doesn't have some kind of theory of joint liability (conspiracy, accomplice, etc.), it will probably kill their case unless they've already let the other guy go and nullified his conviction.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Enoch

[taks]

or the new evidence is overwhelming.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Thanks for explaining that. My legal experience is limited to cash cases.