• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Scalia, Thomas not bothered if the innocent are executed

My wife likes to watch a lot of those "true crime" shows that pop up on daytime TV. This seems to be a common theme..... The defendant will be duly convicted, and subsequently exculpatory evidence (DNA not able to be processed at the time, the actual perpetrator confessing, or something similar) comes to light.
The prosecutors seem amazingly reluctant to address these cases. "He was properly convicted!" is the usual complaint.

Well, yes....But now it appears that he is actually innocent. The fact that the trial was conducted properly and the jury reached a decision is irrelevant; the guy is innocent.

Sure, it's annoying to have invested time and money in a successful trial only to be proved wrong... Grow up.
 
What is needed is some kind of independent review board for the possibility of overturning convictions. Independent meaning that the board and its members would not be connected in any way with the justice system and/or law enforcement and therefore have no vested interest in the reputation of these bureaus or agencies.

The problem is, as with any profession/industry/trade, there is a natural human tendency to deny the possibility of error. When proof of innocence is presented after conviction, it is perceived by the courts and law enforcement not as "OMG, an innocent soul is sitting in prison--get him out!," but rather as being told "You screwed up and you screwed up big time." You are basically telling the jurors, the judge, the attorneys, and the cops who arrested the person that they all ****ed up, which resulted in gobs of taxpayer money being spent, news stories being reported, and an innocent person being incarcerated, all for nothing and now they all have to start from the beginning. So much easier to say "crime solved" and move on. No one wants to own up to that. Admitting to mistakes gives rise to doubts about competence and capability and we can't have that. Telling the courts that they convicted an innocent person is like trying to explain to a cat why he shouldn't have eaten the canary.
 
But now it appears that he is actually innocent. The fact that the trial was conducted properly and the jury reached a decision is irrelevant; the guy is innocent.

Why do you think he is innocent?
 
What is needed is some kind of independent review board for the possibility of overturning convictions. Independent meaning that the board and its members would not be connected in any way with the justice system and/or law enforcement and therefore have no vested interest in the reputation of these bureaus or agencies.

Erle Stanley Gardner (the writer of the Perry Mason stories) once formed "The Court of Last Resort." It was a group of private individuals -- including (over time) medical doctors, criminal investigators, and other authorities -- who re-examined a number of cases from 1946 through the early sixties involving people claiming wrongful conviction. They managed to clear a number of people and save a few persons from death row. I always thought it was a admirable project.
 
Last edited:
Aleck Carpitcher is doing 38 years in Virginia for child molestation, despite the fact that his stepdaughter has admitted that she made up the story because she didn't like it that he got drunk and argued with her mom a lot and she thought it would get him out of the house.

But Virginia only allows "new evidence" for a period of 21 days after trial, so her admission doesn't matter and there he sits.

In the case from the OP, the recants were given 17 years after the trial. It's also interesting that many of those wanting to prove Davis innocent are using the same eyewitnesses to accuse another man of the murder! So it's ok to convict the second guy of murder based on eyewitnesses, but not Davis.

I think a lot of good-hearted people who are opposed to the death penalty end up believing the lies of horrible criminals. I'm sure there are innocent people on death row, but I don't think Troy Davis is one of them.
 
Last edited:
Carpitcher's case is disturbing, but this is an inaccurate summary of it. Virginia passed a law rescinding that 21 day limit and Carpitcher's appeal was heard. What the judge ruled was that although the witness had recanted, the recantation was not trustworthy. Clearly the judge thought that the girl had been pressured into recanting by her mother.

Now, I can agree with a natural-justice argument that says "if the girl is not credible, how can we condemn this man to life in prison on her say so?" But from the appellate court's p.o.v. the people properly vested with the job of judging witness credibility are the trial jury. They judged the original testimony to be honest. That the same girl was later judged to be not credible on a different matter in different circumstances doesn't logically invalidate that original jury's judgment of that original testimony.

If I were an absolute monarch I'd let the guy out of jail (and this is exactly the kind of case for which executive pardons were designed--unfortunately they've become so politicized that I can't imagine any Governor or President being willing to be accused of letting a child-rapist out of jail); but I can understand the appellate court's ruling.

Thanks for the update. I wasn't aware VA had changed the statute. Good for them. I only checked and saw he was still in jail. Mooch appreesh.
 
On the flip-side, perhaps one of the most bizarre statements in the history of American law (loosely defined) was Ted Bundy, acting is his own counsel, asserting that "Now, more than ever, I am convinced of my innocence."

More than ever?

It seems that Mr. Bundy had adopted a completely legalistic view of innocence which was entirely divorced from the notion of whether he had actually committed the crimes.
 
On the flip-side, perhaps one of the most bizarre statements in the history of American law (loosely defined) was Ted Bundy, acting is his own counsel, asserting that "Now, more than ever, I am convinced of my innocence."

More than ever?

It seems that Mr. Bundy had adopted a completely legalistic view of innocence which was entirely divorced from the notion of whether he had actually committed the crimes.

Some of the most cringe-inducing moments in any kind of trial are those watching and listening to laypersons representing themselves in court, especially when examining witnesses before a jury. Make it a felony criminal trial, and you add loads of embarrassment/weirdness to it.

Yeah, anyway, Bundy's representing himself and the questions he asked and arguments he made brought another level of weirdness to his atrocities.

AS
 
Some of the most cringe-inducing moments in any kind of trial are those watching and listening to laypersons representing themselves in court, especially when examining witnesses before a jury. Make it a felony criminal trial, and you add loads of embarrassment/weirdness to it.

Yeah, anyway, Bundy's representing himself and the questions he asked and arguments he made brought another level of weirdness to his atrocities.

AS


Yeah. Pro se cases are often a pain in the ass for judges and prosecutors but comedy gold for those who can just sit back and watch.
 
What's that quote, "Innocence should not be a bar to a conviction."?
More like, "Innocence should not be a bar to executing a sentence."

Yeah--pretty outrageous.

I heard the NPR coverage on it. Just getting a chance to introduce new evidence is not granting the guy a new trial where he starts with the presumption of innocence. At this point, since he was convicted, the presumption is that he is guilty, and it's up to his side to make the case for his innocence. (Part of what they have, though, is testimony that could lead to a Matlock-style ending where you can prove that someone else did it.)

I prefer Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous (or at least famously misquoted) quote:

For my part I think it is a less evil that some criminals should escape, than that the government should play an ignoble part.
 
FYP.

As disturbing as it is, they might be right. I think it's a very bad thing to punish an innocent person, especially with death. But I also recognize that not every very bad thing is unconstitutional. This might be one of those very bad things that is constitutional. I'm not sure. Or to put it in other terms, having procedures to free innocent people when new evidence comes in is a very good thing, but I'm not sure if the Constitution requires it.


What's more disturbing to me than the judges and justices are the prosecutors who oppose these things. The proper role of the prosecutor is not to get convictions, but to get justice. I know some prosecutors take this maxim seriously. Apparently others don't.
You write an example of what is wrong with this kind of thinking. Since when is the bottom line the technicality when it comes to very likely executing an innocent man? You are essentially saying the court is not the place of remedy for injustice! You are claiming the justice is some technical process, not actual justice. That's disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
...
Putting the best face on it, Justice Scalia could be asserting that the convict has not made his case for innocence in all of his previous attempts for post-conviction relief: "[E]very judicial and executive body that has examined petitioner’s stale claim of innocence has been unpersuaded...." Further, there has not been any basis identified why the original trial was improper under the US Constitution ("...after a trial untainted by constitutional defect....") Still further, the crime was not a FEDERAL crime (murder being an offense against the STATE of Georgia), and the State refused to grant post-convistion relief. So why should a federal court stick in its nose?
This could only occur if Scalia and Thomas either didn't read a thing on this case or they are idiots and I doubt either of those possibilities.

Have you taken the time to look at the facts in this case? Here are the facts as they stand.
LAURA MOYE: On the evening of August 18th, 1989 in Savannah, Georgia, a man named Sylvester Coles was picking a fight with a homeless man who just went into a convenience store and bought a pack of beer. He was trying to get the man to give him a can of beer. He refused to, and he followed the man across the parking lot, continuing to argue him and try to bully him into doing this. They went across the street to a Burger King, which was connected to a Greyhound bus station, and the fight escalated.

There were some kids playing pool in a pool hall, including a young man named Troy Davis and some others, who went outside to see what the commotion was, and they went over to check out what was going on. The homeless man was beat in the head with a pistol so badly that he lost consciousness, and his skull was cracked, and he was profusely bleeding in the head.

Hearing this commotion, a young white police officer who was serving off-duty at the Greyhound station attached to the Burger King, ran to check out what was going on, ran to the scene. And before he could even reach for the gun and pull it out of his holster, he was shot to the ground and then shot in the face dead.

So the question became, who shot Officer Mark Allen MacPhail, this young police officer whose death left a woman to be a widow and a young baby to be a son without a father? But perhaps the question that was raised wasn’t that one; perhaps the question that really was on the minds of a group of very enraged police officers and an enraged community was, who will pay for the death of Mark Allen MacPhail? And having no leads, the police were quite desperate.

And one of the first things—you need me to speak up? One of the first things that happened that night is that the other person who was at the scene of the crime, the principal chief alternative suspect, Sylvester Coles, went to the police barracks with a high-paid lawyer and said, “I was there, and I saw Troy Davis commit that crime. I saw him shoot police officer Mark Allen MacPhail dead.”

And it looks pretty clear that what the police then did was take that theory and start to build a case around it, without even investigating the idea that this man himself was the person who could have committed this crime....

...A set of witnesses were rounded up and questioned, including a young man who was sixteen years old, who was—fifteen to twenty police officers came to his house and interrogated him and asked him to sign a statement. Several other people, also vulnerable, were also asked to sign statements, including a man who was illiterate who couldn’t even read the statement he signed. A woman named Dorothy Ferrell, who was out on parole, pregnant and had four children, who basically was sort of asked to do a favor to the prosecutor. So, one by one, this group of witnesses was asked to sign these statements.

The homeless man who was beaten unconscious and couldn’t even remember who beat him and who shot the officer, was bleeding profusely, demanding medical attention. He was interrogated and asked to sign a statement, and they wouldn’t give him help until he did. So, no murder weapon, but a string of these witnesses.

Two years after the crime, Troy Davis goes to death row. The front page of the Savannah Morning News labeled Troy Davis a cop killer before the trial even got underway.


Does that sound like a fair trial to you? Does it sound like anyone with half a brain reading the case file couldn't see that justice was not served in that trial? You can verify the facts in this case via a number of sources. You can read for yourself all the following events that prevented a fair appeals process. There was no fair trial in this case. Scalia and Thomas had to have seen that obvious fact. Right wing brain filters prevented them from acting like normal human beings in this case.
 
I was pro-death penalty until now. This really scares me. Even if I'm found innocent, after being wrongfully convicted, some supreme court justices think that it's ok to carry out sentence..........
 
Not true, at least according to the District Attorney who prosecuted the case. He states there was physical evidence connecting Davis to the murder (oh, by the way he was also convicted of shooting another man in the face and pistol whipping a homeless man earlier that evening) and that those who recanted always denied that they were coerced by the police.

http://www.savannahnow.com/node/597187
This is the first I've heard there was any physical evidence.

The firing pin of a gun can be matched to a shell casing, but I suspect this isn't an exact science. If it were then why would someone be trying to implement a means of actually marking shell casings as they are fired? Microstamping Can Help Police Match Guns to Shell Casings, Study Finds

Was Davis convicted of shooting someone earlier or was it merely alleged? No gun was recovered. Somehow I doubt this was convincing evidence or certain that Davis shot someone earlier the same night.


Like the DA is reliable? Of course he would be convinced he got the right man.



It's interesting that no one else seems to be recognizing the supposed physical evidence. Here's an opinion piece from The Economist, a right leaning magazine:
Even people who support the death penalty are crying foul. William Sessions, a former head of the FBI, says that because there was no physical evidence in the case, Mr Davis deserves another day in court. He may have killed a policeman, but Georgia needs to do more to prove it.

Time magazine:
Seven of the nine main witnesses whose testimony led to his conviction have since recanted. The murder weapon has never been found, and there is no physical evidence linking the crime to Davis, who has asserted his innocence throughout.


How does this from your second link make sense:
** And, while it isn’t physical evidence, consider the “testimony” of Officer MacPhail himself – evidence of his actual perceptions and conduct under fire that can’t be fiddled with after the fact: He ran past Sylvester Coles on his way to Troy Davis. This makes Davis the only one of those two with a motive to shoot Officer MacPhail.
How could MacPhail have given such testimony? He was dead.
 
You write an example of what is wrong with this kind of thinking. Since when is the bottom line the technicality when it comes to very likely executing an innocent man? You are essentially saying the court is not the place of remedy for injustice! You are claiming the justice is some technical process, not actual justice. That's disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't understand your question. Both of the things you say I'm saying I'm not saying, so I suspect your disgust in me is misplaced. I can give you a better response if you want to reword what you've said into something easier to understand. Or if you'd rather not, that's fine too.
 
This is the first I've heard there was any physical evidence.

Forensic ballistics matched the bullets and the casings from the Cooper shooting to murder of Officer MacPhil. It was the same gun.

Was Davis convicted of shooting someone earlier or was it merely alleged? No gun was recovered. Somehow I doubt this was convincing evidence or certain that Davis shot someone earlier the same night.

In addition to being convicted for the muder of Officer MacPhil, Davis was also convicted of the aggavated assult for shooting Michael Cooper in the face eariler that evening, aggravated assult for the pistol-whipping of Larry Young, also that evening, and other offenses.

Like the DA is reliable?

Do you have any evidence that District Attorney Stewart Lawton, Jr. has acted in anyway improper?

How does this from your second link make sense:How could MacPhail have given such testimony? He was dead.

He put the word testimony is quotes, meaning that Officer MacPhail actions that night demonstrated who he intended to arrest. He ran past Sylvester Coles (the second man at the shooting) towards Davis, who now had a motive to shoot MacPhail (who by the way never even unholsterd his gun).

As for the recants, none appeared until 17 years after the trial and not one has met the legal requirements for a new trial. This was the opinion of 29 different justices in both the state and federal level.

It's one thing to say that the death penalty is wrong, it's another thing entirely to say that Troy Davis is innocent and should be walking the streets. One point that everyone agrees upon is that the only two people who could of possibly committed the murder is either Coles or Davis. Even if you throw out all the eyewitness testimony Davis is the only one who had the means, motive and opportunity to murder MacPhail. There is ZERO evidence against Coles.
 
For heaven's sake, this is Scalia and Thomas you're talking about. They woudn't be bothered if the chestburster from Alien erupted out of their own mothers in front of them then began eating puppies and toddlers. Scalia would probably join in.





eta: Thomas wouldn't join in, but only because he'd already had that for breakfast.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom