Knowingly Killing an Innocent Man
This is from David Swanson's blog. There is also a video there: http://www.democrats.com/node/18022.
If you are in Albuquerque, there is still time this weekend to see the play, "The Exhonerated," at The Filling Station on 4th Street SW. It deals with 6 other cases of the judicial system being corrupted, sending people to death row. Although the six were saved from the death penalty, it came too late for the husband of one of them, who was executed.
Knowingly Killing an Innocent Man
Submitted by davidswanson on October 15, 2008 - 11:09am.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to halt the execution of an innocent man. That doesn't mean the struggle to save him is over. For next steps go to: http://freetroydavis.com
Deirdre O’Connor, an attorney licensed in California and Georgia, is the director of Innocence Matters. She wrote an amicus brief in support of Troy Davis's Petition for Certiorari. She explains the case thus:
“They’re either lying now or they were lying then” is a logical reaction to any recantation; indeed, an unassailable one. However, as illustrated in the multiple recantation case of Troy Davis pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, determining which version represents the truth cannot be addressed, let alone reliably resolved, absent a new trial.
It is not the function of the Chatham County trial judge, the Georgia Supreme Court, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, or the U.S. Supreme Court to make that determination. Our justice system reserves that job for twelve impartial jurors. Rather, the court’s role, when presented with seven recantations (and other evidence of innocence), is limited to this question: Is the new evidence reliable enough to undermine our confidence in the guilty verdict?
The court can, and should, consider the reliability of the trial evidence as part of its assessment. If the evidence received at trial is determined to be irrefutable proof of guilt, then the recantations do little to undermine the verdict. If, however, the evidence used to convict Mr. Davis is reasonably called into question, then a new trial must be granted.
If the U.S. Supreme Court were to examine the reliability of the five stranger eyewitness identifications – Dorothy Ferrell, Stephen Sanders, Antione Williams, Larry Young, and Harriet Murray – it would find ample reason to doubt Mr. Davis’ guilt.
Decades of scientific studies confirm that distance, lighting, duration of crime, weapon-focus, other race effect, etc. can impede ability to encode sufficient detail to make an accurate identification later. Moreover, a witness’ memory of the assailant’s face is malleable. Even unintentional suggestions – let alone the overt pressure alleged here – can contaminate memory and lead the witness to confidently identify the wrong person. In the absence of expert testimony explaining that there is no significant correlation between accuracy and confidence, jurors typically put great weight on eyewitness certainty. Davis’ trial attorneys did not call an expert; the jurors were instructed they could consider certainty when judging the reliability of these identifications. Dorothy Ferrell was standing at least 160 feet away from the scene. It is impossible to observe sufficient facial detail at that distance. What explains her selection of Davis? The detectives showed Ferrell a single photo of Davis prior to the official identification and told her that he was the shooter. When later asked if she recognized the shooter from a group of five photos, she selected the photo previously shown to her. What about the witnesses in the dimly-lit parking lot? What did the witnesses in the line of fire observe in the few seconds that transpired from Sylvester “Redd” Coles’ threat to shoot Larry Young to the shooting death of Officer MacPhail?
Stephen Sanders – one of eight passengers in a van ordering food at the drive-thru window after a night of drinking – was unable to identify the shooter that night. A month later, Sanders still could not identify the shooter. Neither could any of his companions. Yet, two years later, Sanders identified Troy Davis at trial. Memory does not improve over time.
Antione Williams saw an armed man arguing with Larry Young as the two faced off. Williams saw that same man pistol-whip Young and shoot Officer MacPhail. (Redd testified that he was the only one hassling Young. Redd conceded, as did the other witnesses, that Troy Davis never said a word to Young.) Over the next ten days, Williams viewed the wanted poster prominently displayed at his place of employment, with the same photo of Davis shown Ferrell and used in the photo array. After repeated exposure, Williams was 60% sure that Davis was the shooter. Harriet Murray was in the parking lot waiting for Young to return. She saw one man (later identified as Redd) hassling Young for his beer as he walked back to the lot. She heard that man threaten Young, “You don’t know me. I’ll shoot you.” (Redd admitted that he – and only he - made this threat.) She saw that man pull a gun out of his waistband. At that point, she ran for cover.
Larry Young told the police, as he bled from his untreated head injury, that he was not sure who hit him because “everything happened so fast.” Do we have any reason to feel confident that these eyewitnesses were accurately identifying Officer MacPhail’s killer? It is not even a close question. Justice and our commitment to protect the innocent require that Mr. Davis be given a new trial.
If you are in Albuquerque, there is still time this weekend to see the play, "The Exhonerated," at The Filling Station on 4th Street SW. It deals with 6 other cases of the judicial system being corrupted, sending people to death row. Although the six were saved from the death penalty, it came too late for the husband of one of them, who was executed.
Knowingly Killing an Innocent Man
Submitted by davidswanson on October 15, 2008 - 11:09am.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to halt the execution of an innocent man. That doesn't mean the struggle to save him is over. For next steps go to: http://freetroydavis.com
Deirdre O’Connor, an attorney licensed in California and Georgia, is the director of Innocence Matters. She wrote an amicus brief in support of Troy Davis's Petition for Certiorari. She explains the case thus:
“They’re either lying now or they were lying then” is a logical reaction to any recantation; indeed, an unassailable one. However, as illustrated in the multiple recantation case of Troy Davis pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, determining which version represents the truth cannot be addressed, let alone reliably resolved, absent a new trial.
It is not the function of the Chatham County trial judge, the Georgia Supreme Court, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, or the U.S. Supreme Court to make that determination. Our justice system reserves that job for twelve impartial jurors. Rather, the court’s role, when presented with seven recantations (and other evidence of innocence), is limited to this question: Is the new evidence reliable enough to undermine our confidence in the guilty verdict?
The court can, and should, consider the reliability of the trial evidence as part of its assessment. If the evidence received at trial is determined to be irrefutable proof of guilt, then the recantations do little to undermine the verdict. If, however, the evidence used to convict Mr. Davis is reasonably called into question, then a new trial must be granted.
If the U.S. Supreme Court were to examine the reliability of the five stranger eyewitness identifications – Dorothy Ferrell, Stephen Sanders, Antione Williams, Larry Young, and Harriet Murray – it would find ample reason to doubt Mr. Davis’ guilt.
Decades of scientific studies confirm that distance, lighting, duration of crime, weapon-focus, other race effect, etc. can impede ability to encode sufficient detail to make an accurate identification later. Moreover, a witness’ memory of the assailant’s face is malleable. Even unintentional suggestions – let alone the overt pressure alleged here – can contaminate memory and lead the witness to confidently identify the wrong person. In the absence of expert testimony explaining that there is no significant correlation between accuracy and confidence, jurors typically put great weight on eyewitness certainty. Davis’ trial attorneys did not call an expert; the jurors were instructed they could consider certainty when judging the reliability of these identifications. Dorothy Ferrell was standing at least 160 feet away from the scene. It is impossible to observe sufficient facial detail at that distance. What explains her selection of Davis? The detectives showed Ferrell a single photo of Davis prior to the official identification and told her that he was the shooter. When later asked if she recognized the shooter from a group of five photos, she selected the photo previously shown to her. What about the witnesses in the dimly-lit parking lot? What did the witnesses in the line of fire observe in the few seconds that transpired from Sylvester “Redd” Coles’ threat to shoot Larry Young to the shooting death of Officer MacPhail?
Stephen Sanders – one of eight passengers in a van ordering food at the drive-thru window after a night of drinking – was unable to identify the shooter that night. A month later, Sanders still could not identify the shooter. Neither could any of his companions. Yet, two years later, Sanders identified Troy Davis at trial. Memory does not improve over time.
Antione Williams saw an armed man arguing with Larry Young as the two faced off. Williams saw that same man pistol-whip Young and shoot Officer MacPhail. (Redd testified that he was the only one hassling Young. Redd conceded, as did the other witnesses, that Troy Davis never said a word to Young.) Over the next ten days, Williams viewed the wanted poster prominently displayed at his place of employment, with the same photo of Davis shown Ferrell and used in the photo array. After repeated exposure, Williams was 60% sure that Davis was the shooter. Harriet Murray was in the parking lot waiting for Young to return. She saw one man (later identified as Redd) hassling Young for his beer as he walked back to the lot. She heard that man threaten Young, “You don’t know me. I’ll shoot you.” (Redd admitted that he – and only he - made this threat.) She saw that man pull a gun out of his waistband. At that point, she ran for cover.
Larry Young told the police, as he bled from his untreated head injury, that he was not sure who hit him because “everything happened so fast.” Do we have any reason to feel confident that these eyewitnesses were accurately identifying Officer MacPhail’s killer? It is not even a close question. Justice and our commitment to protect the innocent require that Mr. Davis be given a new trial.
Labels: death penalty, Troy Davis
1 Comments:
Regarding Troy Davis
It is always required that both sides of the story be told.
Please read all of the references, below, in their entirety.
(1) Davis v Georgia, Georgia Supreme Court, March 17, 2008
Full ruling http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1758.pdf
Summary http://www.gasupreme.us/op_summaries/mar_17.pdf
" . . . the majority finds that 'most of the witnesses to the crime who have allegedly recanted have merely stated that they now do not feel able to identify the shooter.' "One of the affidavits 'might actually be read so as to confirm trial testimony that Davis was the shooter.' "
The murder occurred in 1989.
(2) "THE PAROLE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF THE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS CASE" ,
9/22/08, http://www.pap.state.ga.us/opencms/opencms/
"After an exhaustive review of all available information regarding the Troy Davis case and after considering all possible reasons for granting clemency, the Board has determined that clemency is not warranted."
"The Board has now spent more than a year studying and considering this case. As a part of its proceedings, the Board gave Davis’ attorneys an opportunity to present every witness they desired to support their allegation that there is doubt as to Davis’ guilt. The Board heard each of these witnesses and questioned them closely. In addition, the Board has studied the voluminous trial transcript, the police investigation report and the initial statements of all witnesses. The Board has also had certain physical evidence retested and Davis interviewed."
(3) read the PDF statement released by Chatham County District Attorney Spencer Lawton on the case facts at: http://tinyurl.com/46c73l
A detailed review of the extraordinary consideration that Davis was given for all of his claims.
(4) Officer Mark Allen MacPhail
The family of murdered Officer MacPhail fully believes that Troy Davis murdered their loved one and that the evidence is supportive of that opinion.
http://www.markallenmacphail.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home