U.S. Supreme Court blocks Texas execution

[slingblade]

In execution of my duties as an officer of the court, my moral choice is to use my authority within the bounds of the law. I expect other officers of the court to behave the same way.

And, yes, if I as a judge do not have the power to legally save an innocent man, I should not use my authority illegally to do so.
My actions as a private citizen are another matter, but I sincerely believe that overreaching one's political power and failing to respect the limits of government is far more "monstrous" than usurping power for whatever noble end.

As far as the bit I highlighted goes: if I as a judge somehow (undefined) had evidence that a particular person was innocent of the charge upon which he was convicted, and the result is that he will lose his life if I don't intervene, I would use my authority in any way possible to spare him. Even if it meant doing something illegal.

Now, in general, I recognize that performing an illegality would muddy the waters horribly. And could result in harming this innocent even further--say, resulting in denying him anymore appeals. I'd have to be very careful that my actions didn't harm him further. That whole unintended consequences thing, you know.

But again, just in general, I've no moral compunctions against performing an illegal action, if to do so will spare the life of a person who is innocent of the charges against him. That life is more important to me than my conscience.

Yes, it's probably a very good thing that I'll never be a judge.

 

[Metullus]

If it is not within the power of SCOTUS to act legally, how could it act outside the law to remedy the situation? Arrange a SCOTUS funded jailbreak?

Couldn't it be argued that the President should grant a pardon, whether or not he is legally entitled to do so? Would an illegal pardon have the force of law? How about the Lt. Governor? Or me?

 

[AvalonXQ]

But again, just in general, I've no moral compunctions against performing an illegal action, if to do so will spare the life of a person who is innocent of the charges against him. That life is more important to me than my conscience.

In my private capacity, I agree with you.
But while I might be able to suspend my personal loyalty as a citizen of the U.S. to address an injustice, I would generally be unwilling to abuse a position of power to do so. Most particularly, I would not usurp power to address it. That's an act that I believe to be more far-reaching and evil than the initial injustice.

Yes, it's probably a very good thing that I'll never be a judge.

That's probably true of most of us...

...as well as many of those who actually are judges.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks!

I am somewhat familiar with that case, however as far as I know it has not been definitely ruled as a wrongful execution just yet.

In my case, I was thinking of Ethel Rosenberg who was executed in 1953 for being a spy for the USSR. And while she was involved with spying, she was a rather minor actor in it and as such, that was a wrongful execution.

You might be interested in the CSPAN conference on the Rosenbergs that aired recently. I found it fascinating. [/off topic]

As for Willingham, that depends on what you consider "definitely ruled":

Until the forensic science commission took the case in 2008, the panel had operated largely in obscurity. Then, in 2009, as the commission was set to hear a damning report from another expert it had hired to do an independent analysis, Mr. Perry abruptly appointed three new members and dismissed the sitting chairman. The governor’s critics called the move political meddling. Mr. Perry said he simply replaced commissioners whose terms had expired, and he rejected the work of those who had questioned the arson findings as that of “latter-day supposed experts.”

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In execution of my duties as an officer of the court, my moral choice is to use my authority within the bounds of the law. I expect other officers of the court to behave the same way.

And, yes, if I as a judge do not have the power to legally save an innocent man, I should not use my authority illegally to do so.

My actions as a private citizen are another matter, but I sincerely believe that overreaching one's political power and failing to respect the limits of government is far more "monstrous" than usurping power for whatever noble end.

You ignored the part about Scalia and Thomas having the minority opinion. That suggests more personal morals and less Constitution to me. That or the moral position is so untenable 7 other SCOTUS justices couldn't ignore the idea of executing an innocent person under any circumstances.

As Rand has pointed out, there is a conflicting line in the Constitution that says we have the right to life. I doubt if the due process clause was ever intended to say that some due process formality overruled right to life when the person was "actually" innocent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If it is not within the power of SCOTUS to act legally, how could it act outside the law to remedy the situation? Arrange a SCOTUS funded jailbreak?

Couldn't it be argued that the President should grant a pardon, whether or not he is legally entitled to do so? Would an illegal pardon have the force of law? How about the Lt. Governor? Or me?

Apparently Justice Stephens disagreed and found it was within their power.

From Wiki:

On August 17, 2009, the Supreme Court ordered the Savannah federal district court to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence."[5][96] Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer wrote that "[t]he substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing." Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, stating the a new hearing would be "fool's errand" because Davis' claim of innocence was "a sure loser." He was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.[97]

It's also worth noting:

Moore ruled that executing an innocent person would violate the Eighth Amendment, but that Davis and his legal team had failed to demonstrate his innocence.

We should probably get back to the thread topic. I had no desire to hijack a thread about racial bias and the death penalty and change the topic to Scalia or Davis. It's just that Davis' execution is also pending in a few days and it's scary to think he was convicted on nothing more than flawed eyewitness testimony.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You ignored the part about Scalia and Thomas having the minority opinion. That suggests more personal morals and less Constitution to me.

That's possible, but that's not what Scalia said and that's not what RandFan was arguing against.

I might very well side with the 7 over the 2 that actual innocence should raise a Constitutional question. But I believe Scalia was correct to point out that the issue was very specifically left open in prior SCOTUS opinions. Either way, characterizing Scalia as just saying that innocence is irrelevant is, in my opinion, an innacurate simplification of the situation. He was acknowledging that not all questions are SCOTUS questions; generally speaking, a disagreement as to the interpretation of the factual evidence is simply not a matter that SCOTUS has any right to opine on.

And RandFan's position that the jurisdictional limits of SCOTUS should be thrown aside and the Court exercise its power whenever they disagree with a state court, simply because they are "the highest court in the land" and therefore somehow are responsible for the outcomes of all court decisions, is a position I flat-out disagree with and believe to be particularly dangerous. I appreciate that he's limiting this to one specific circumstance, but it's still dangerous. We give these people a truly staggering amount of power; they should be particularly careful not to wrongly take any more.

 

[Metullus]

Apparently Justice Stephens disagreed and found it was within their power.

Whether or not Justice Stevens disagreed is not relevant to Scalia's view on the role of the Supreme Court or Scalia's reasoning in arriving at that view. Neither is it relevant to what Scalia might see as the consequences of his views. If it is not the role of the Supreme Court to decide issues of guilt or innocence then Scalia is correct and consistent, which is not to say that he does not care about the facts. If he is incorrect in his view of the Court's role then it is within his authority to judge the facts of the case and I would suspect that he would do so. It is not a question of whether not he cares about something but whether or not he has the authority to act.

 

[RandFan]

And RandFan's position that the jurisdictional limits of SCOTUS should be thrown aside and the Court exercise its power whenever they disagree with a state court, simply because they are "the highest court in the land"...

To be sure, this is NOT my position. SCOTUS is the last line of defense when it comes to fundamental individual rights. It is the one instance SCOTUS will always trump states rights to counter tyranny of the majority. When it comes to our most basic and fundamental rights there are no jurisdictional limits. States cannot infringe on our rights to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion or the right to life. States may not execute innocent people on the basis of pro forma process.

So, please don't leave that out when you restate my position. I wouldn't have responded but that is a critical point that is, intentionally or unintentional being left out.

RandFan's position is that when it comes to killing innocent people SCOTUS has a duty to protect the right to life because when it comes to fundamental rights it is the highest court in the land.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men ...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...

See:

5th Amendment
Plato's Republic
Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[Crossbow]

You might be interested in the CSPAN conference on the Rosenbergs that aired recently. I found it fascinating. [/off topic]

Thanks for the data! I will have to check it out.

As for Willingham, that depends on what you consider "definitely ruled":

True enough!

In the Rosenberg case there was some additional evidence released at the end of the Cold War which clearly showed that her role was rather minor and therefore did not warrant the death penalty.

But in the Willingham case, there are still some issues being contested, so I am still a bit hesitant to call it a wrongful execution just yet.

However, I do expect that eventually it will be determined that he was wrongfully executed as well.

 

[AvalonXQ]

To be sure, this is NOT my position. SCOTUS is the last line of defense when it comes to fundamental individual rights. It is the one instance SCOTUS will always trump states rights to counter tyranny of the majority. When it comes to our most basic and fundamental rights there are no jurisdictional limits. States cannot infringe on our rights to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion or the right to life. States may not execute innocent people on the basis of pro forma process.

See, again, Constitutional jurisprudence doesn't agree with you.

In these cases, SCOTUS isn't merely acting from a sense of justice. It acts because these Constitutional issues raise a federal question, usually by means of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, in fact, the Constitution forbids the State from violating our rights, and state action to do so is properly overturned as unconstitutional.

This doesn't imply that any time there's any sort of rights violation or "tyrrany of the majority", that SCOTUS has a right or responsibility to act. Only when those rights can be found as Constitutional protections, and the state or federal violation of those rights raises a Constitutional question, should SCOTUS act to overturn a state decision.

Eventually, it was found that "execution of an innocent man" is a violation of the 8th Amendment. I'm inclined to agree to this ruling. But you asserted earlier that SCOTUS needs to come to the rescue whether or not they have a jurisdictional reason to do so. I respectfully disagree. SCOTUS is not all-powerful, nor is their role simply to preserve all justice in the U.S. That's our role as the people who wrote the Constitution and make the laws. Anything else is something different than a democracy.

 

[Suddenly]

My understanding of the Davis case is as so:

The core question is whether or not the US Constitution contains a right to fight a conviction and sentence based on "actual innocence."

Generally speaking, the case went like this.

At the state level, Davis filed a habeas corpus and had a hearing to present evidence of wrongful conviction on several grounds. The state habeas court ruled the evidence failed to meet the standard, and that ruling was upheld up the line.

Davis then filed a habeas in federal court alleging actual innocence, and that court told him he was SOL and didn't have a hearing. The appeals court agreed. The USSC reversed and ordered the district court to take evidence. This would be the first step in deciding once and for all if there is a federal right to present "actual innocence" as a post-conviction defense.

Scalia's point was twofold. First, that the technical nature of something called the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act probably makes reversal impossible. Second, that he thinks Davis is guilty anyway.

(The second is ironic given the argument in this thread, that the Justice willing to consider the facts of the case voted to uphold the death sentence)


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Anyway...

I agree with RandFan to the point that the USSC should recognize actual innocence as a bar to execution. However, the USSC should have to give great deference to the finding of fact of the court (usually the trial level district court) holding the hearings.

Legal questions are decided de novo, more or less "afresh." Little or no deference is given the lower court.

Factual questions on appeal are usually, but with several exceptions, decided using a "clearly wrong" standard. The appeals court can't substitute it's judgement for the judgement of the court below unless the decision is a complete howler. Night is day, that sort of thing.

 

[RandFan]

Anything else is something different than a democracy.

We are not simply a Democracy. Otherwise tyranny of the majority would stand. The precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson would stand.

One more time, please read Plato's republic and Alexis de Tocqueville democracy in America. This notion that we are a simple Democracy is easily falsifiable in that we elect leaders to enact laws and we have courts to protect the minority from the majority.

In these cases, SCOTUS isn't merely acting from a sense of justice.

Yeah, I get why you are stating that but again, however it's not my position. I have detailed over and over the specific rights as noted in the Declaration and Constitution that were violated. In the end states cannot simply violate an inalienable right to life. You may focus on my attention to the obvious twilight zone aspect of this but in the end my argument does not turn on that. So please, move on from that.

RandFan's position is that when it comes to killing innocent people SCOTUS has a duty to protect the right to life because when it comes to fundamental rights it is the highest court in the land.

SCOTUS doesn't need to act out of a sense of outrage against injustice. It only need read the constitution.

 

[RandFan]

Anyway...

I agree with RandFan to the point that the USSC should recognize actual innocence as a bar to execution. However, the USSC should have to give great deference to the finding of fact of the court (usually the trial level district court) holding the hearings.

Legal questions are decided de novo, more or less "afresh." Little or no deference is given the lower court.

Factual questions on appeal are usually, but with several exceptions, decided using a "clearly wrong" standard. The appeals court can't substitute it's judgement for the judgement of the court below unless the decision is a complete howler. Night is day, that sort of thing.

Good post. Agreed. Of course a fiscal solution would be to eliminate capital punishment.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I tire of people asking me to read things I have read and understand, as though disagreeing with them implies I could not possibly be as well-read on the subject as they are.

 

[RandFan]

I tire of people asking me to read things I have read and understand, as though disagreeing with them implies I could not possibly be as well-read on the subject as they are.

I apologize, but I simply cannot reconcile your statements otherwise. They make no sense to me. If you understand that democracy without checks can lead to tyranny of the majority then why make the statement: "That's our role as the people who wrote the Constitution and make the laws. Anything else is something different than a democracy." Yes, SOMETHING different, we are in fact a "Republic" whose leaders are elected democratically with powers split between the legislative, executive and judicial very different than just a democracy.

 

[catsmate]

Of course, from a legal perspective, an innocent person cannot possibly be sentenced to death.

Alas the legal perspective doesn't necessarily match up with objective reality.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whether or not Justice Stevens disagreed is not relevant to Scalia's view on the role of the Supreme Court or Scalia's reasoning in arriving at that view. Neither is it relevant to what Scalia might see as the consequences of his views. If it is not the role of the Supreme Court to decide issues of guilt or innocence then Scalia is correct and consistent, which is not to say that he does not care about the facts. If he is incorrect in his view of the Court's role then it is within his authority to judge the facts of the case and I would suspect that he would do so. It is not a question of whether not he cares about something but whether or not he has the authority to act.

Just because Scalia believes it is the Constitution he is following and not his moral compass does not mean that is the actual case. The idea Scalia operates under the premise that executing an innocent person is Constitutional is an abhorrent belief regardless of how one rationalizes it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks for the data! I will have to check it out.



True enough!

In the Rosenberg case there was some additional evidence released at the end of the Cold War which clearly showed that her role was rather minor and therefore did not warrant the death penalty.

But in the Willingham case, there are still some issues being contested, so I am still a bit hesitant to call it a wrongful execution just yet.

However, I do expect that eventually it will be determined that he was wrongfully executed as well.

If you've looked at the opinons of the experts in arson investigation, the consensus is the evidence that the fire was arson is inadequate to draw such a conclusion. The only 'experts' who claim that is not the case are the ones whose motivation can be linked to political pressure.

The following report was the one Perry ignored:
Analysis of the Fire Investigation Methods and Procedures Used in the Criminal Arson Cases Against Ernest Ray Willis and Cameron Todd Willingham

CONCLUSIONS
The investigations of the Willis and Willingham fires did not comport with either the modern standard of care expressed by NFPA 921, or the standard of care expressed by fire investigation texts and papers in the period 1980–1992. The investigators had poor understandings of fire science and failed to acknowledge or apply the contemporaneous understanding of the limitations of fire indicators. Their methodologies did not comport with the scientific method or the process of elimination. A finding of arson could not be sustained based upon the standard of care expressed by NFPA 921, or the standard of care expressed by fire investigation texts and papers in the period 1980–1992.

The next paper is the one Perry made sure was all that Texas officially got. In it the commission simply declined to call a spade a spade and instead made excuses for why the commission was not there to draw any conclusions about the specific cases. They then published an extensive report on what was needed to fix the problems with arson investigation in Texas. In other words, they weren't saying the investigation was flawed, but BTW, here's a tremendous amount of documentation on what needs to be fixed.
REPORT OF THE TEXAS FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMISSION WILLINGHAM/WILLIS INVESTIGATION

 

[RandFan]

If you've looked at the opinons of the experts in arson investigation, the consensus is the evidence that the fire was arson is inadequate to draw such a conclusion. The only 'experts' who claim that is not the case are the ones whose motivation can be linked to political pressure.

My understanding is that the "science" of arson investigation is coming more and more under scrutiny.