This has been a pretty big cause around my college lately, and I've seen a good case for reasonable doubt, but it's very hard to overturn a conviction regardless.

Research shows he has had lots of appeals and even the US Supreme Court has heard his case once, ordering a lower court to review new evidence not available at trial. He was still found guilty. His second appeal to the highest court was denied. He had his day and now he dies. Maybe he is innocent, but our justice system has done what is was designed to do. In the old west, he'd have been dead long ago as he would have been hung within days of his first conviction.

"I've never heard of this guy, and so I doubt."

Sorry if youve been living in a cave for 3 months but that is irrelevant to this discussion

"You have a different set of facts than the jury does, so you doubt."

No I have the same set of facts, in a case decided by witness testimony 7 of the 9 witnesses have recanted, many of them now testifying about police coersion.

"But you can't really say whether or not the jury should be doubting."

Really? Former FBI Chief William Sessions has reviewed the evidence and decided that the sentence should be commuted.

Bottom line is there is a good chance an innocent man is going to be murdered by the state

There's at least fair to middling evidence that there was malice intended in the court proceedings and denials of retrials. Seven of the nine eyewitnesses have recanted their stories and said they were coerced by police to give their original testimony. One of the other two eyewitnesses was himself a suspect. There's a lot of fishy things about the case.

However.

I have to say that innocent people get the death penalty all the time, and that's just part of any system, human error. It's awful when it happens, but there will never be a perfect system.

"He was still found guilty."

That is wrong, it was found that there wasnt sufficient proof that he was innocent, completely different

"He had his day and now he dies. Maybe he is innocent, but our justice system has done what is was designed to do. In the old west, he'd have been dead long ago as he would have been hung within days of his first conviction."

Our justice system was not designed to kill innocent men you twit. Perhaps you should bring up the old south rather than the old west. It seems much more relevant in this case. I'm also glad you feel so comfortable killing a potentially innocent man.

"That is wrong, it was found that there wasnt sufficient proof that he was innocent, completely different"

This goes back to how hard it is to overturn things. It really should be innocent until PROVEN guilty, not the reverse. Human error's going to happen, but we do have to be vigilant when we see it.

"I've never heard of this guy, and so I doubt."

Sorry if youve been living in a cave for 3 months but that is irrelevant to this discussion

"You have a different set of facts than the jury does, so you doubt."

No I have the same set of facts, in a case decided by witness testimony 7 of the 9 witnesses have recanted, many of them now testifying about police coersion.

"But you can't really say whether or not the jury should be doubting."

Really? Former FBI Chief William Sessions has reviewed the evidence and decided that the sentence should be commuted.

Bottom line is there is a good chance an innocent man is going to be murdered by the state

exactly, the verdict was locked in when 9 people testified against him, since then 7 have been recanted but now he has to prove himself innocent rather than the state having to prove him guilty. Is there a way to avoid such an eventuality in the justice system? No. Is there a way to avoid killing an innocent man? YES. Drop the politics and commute the sentence.

dont know how that got posted again

I'm not killing him, dude. And "there wasnt sufficient proof that he was innocent" is a boguis statemenrt. People aren't found innocent. They are found guilty or not guilty, never innocent. And there is no such thing as sufficient proof, it is sufficient evidence. In this case there was insufficient evidence to overturn his conviction or commute his sentence by a federal court. Then the US Supreme Court refused to hear his case a second time. So again, I say he had his day. Sorry, but while I believe there is sufficient doubt, the courts (and not just GA, but federal ones too) obviously believe there is stil sufficient evidence to uphold his conviction and not give him another trial.

"In a 172-page order, U.S. District Judge William T. Moore Jr. said Davis failed to prove his innocence during an extraordinary hearing in June ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Davis, on death row for 19 years, now has one final appeal before his death sentence can be carried out."

Draugnar do some more "research "and then talk to the big boys. This isnt a trial, this is a hearing in which the defendent needs to prove his innocence in order to avoid the death penalty. Since 20 years ago he was found guilty he now needs to prove his innocence. The Supreme Court had no grounds to accept the case the second time, it has nothing to do with whether or not there is "sufficient evidence" (wow you sound so lawyerly even though you have no clue what you are talking about).

Sigh. I should have known better than to get involved in one of these threads. Should have expected to get the exact response I got.

That quote from Wikipedia is innacurate. Try getting the actual 172 page order. You will *not* find the phrase "failed to prove his innocence" or even the words "proof/prove" and "innocence" within proximity of each other. I guarantee it. A wikipedia quote that any one could have written and that doesn't provide the *exact* statement made by the judge is tainted by personal opinion and stupid error.

I don't live in a cave, but I don't go to college or live in Georgia either. I've never heard of the guy until this thread.

From what I can read on wikipedia, a U.S. District Court judge reviewed the evidence after some of the witnesses recanted. He found some of the recanting not credible. He criticized Davis' defense team for not timely serving a subpoena on the key witness (they only allowed one day and did not find him), who consequently was not present in court.

That's good enough for me. Davis has had the opportunities allowed by the justice system. I don't consider the Georgia Board of Pardons to be "bloodthirsty" even if the truth -- which we will never know -- is that an innocent man is going to be executed.

yeah you should. You come in knowing nothing about the topic and give a snarky response. You got one back. As usual you are such a martyr smily.

"That quote from Wikipedia is innacurate. "

Heh heh heh it isnt from wikipedia its from a local news agency. Where did you go to law school Draug?

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/judge-must-decide-whether-556708.html

Why do you keep talking about shit you clearly don't understand? Its baffling.

"From what I can read on wikipedia, a U.S. District Court judge reviewed the evidence after some of the witnesses recanted. He found some of the recanting not credible. He criticized Davis' defense team for not timely serving a subpoena on the key witness (they only allowed one day and did not find him), who consequently was not present in court.

That's good enough for me. Davis has had the opportunities allowed by the justice system. I don't consider the Georgia Board of Pardons to be "bloodthirsty" even if the truth -- which we will never know -- is that an innocent man is going to be executed."

so a man should die because his attorneys fucked up and a judge was impatient. Excellent.

Draugnar. Just incase you are wondering, The hearing... are you ready... was to "Receive testimony and make findings as to whether evidence that could not be obtained at the time of the trial CLEARLY ESTABLISHES the petitioners INNOCENCE"

Page 1, Judge Moores 172 page order.

Anything else?

Interesting. Do you have a link to that order, by chance? I had never, in my life, heard of someone havign to prove there innocence even after being convicted. All they've ever previously had to show was a preponderence of evidence providing reasonable doubt of their conviction.

http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pdfs/DavisRuling082410.pdf

There you go Perry Mason.

Page 2
"For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that
while executing an innocent person would violate the United
States Constitution, Mr. Davis has failed to prove his
innocence. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED."

@santa - Why do you insult me when I ask for evidence? You fucking jews are all alike. I asked for the link so I coudl read it and instead of just giving me the link, you go on to make slurs. Fucking asswipe jewboy.

ha, I didn't think Perry Mason was that big of an insult, but i see it brought out the mapleleaf in you.

It was an unnecessary insult. Period. We were having a civil discussion and you threw in a slur. So I threw the barage at you. Think before you post slurs at people who have been civil to you next time, fucktard.

Now, back to civility. This is an interesting order. I hadn't ever actually heard of someone having to prove their innocence before and would think this standard to avoid even the death penalty would be a violation of the constitution. I would think sufficient evidence of reasonable doubt would suffice, but clearly not in this case. Thank you for the very enlightening and disturbing link.

Perry Mason is a Slur? I was commenting on your tireless legal research. Quite frankly I think I said worse things before.

I'm glad that I was right after all, despite being a fucktard...

When said in a snarky tone as was clearly implied, it was intended as an insult. Do you deny intending it as an insult, Santa?

More of a quip in my book, insult or not though I hardly think it warranted a nasty anti-semitic retort but I understand such comments are thrown around cheaply in these parts.

Either way, I'm glad we got this sorted out, I have very rarely been able to say I proved someone completely wrong on this site. Too bad Troy Anthony Davis is still going to be executed tomorrow.

Actually I thought the snarky comment was this bit: "Draugnar do some more "research "and then talk to the big boys". That was a bit snarky. Only a bit though.
Also "you fucking Jews are all alike" was a little bit snarky too.

He's being executed tomorrow?!
That is a terrible shame.

I assume it is a higher standard for the rehearing so the courts are not even more flooded with attempts to overturn convictions. There already is a drain on judicial resources from prisoners submitting their own appeals while incarcerated. No reasonable doubt is a very tough standard the first time around.

Yes, I think an innocent man should die if he got the chances afforded by the judicial system and could not meet the established standards. Unfortunate, but it happens. People die all the time for myriad reasons, many of which are "unfair." I have no doubt that Amnesty Internatonal will find another poster boy next week, as there is no shortage of supposedly innocent people in the world facing unjust death.

And I will apologize for the two racial epithets. I shouldn't have thrown them around so readily. Sorry.

I have only heard of one person with nearly as much doubt as this one and that was that father charged with Arson who was killed a few years back. I don't understand how you can possibly support the death penalty if you have that point of view.

Let's be realistic here. Guilty or not, he was there conducting himself in a questionable manner with questionable associates. Of that there is no doubt. He has had plenty of opportunity to establish the questionable circumstances and has not done so to a jury's or a court's satisfaction. I'm sorry he is goingto die, but only two men can change that right now (the PResident and the Governor of GA). As a former FBI Chief, I'm sure Sessions could get the President's ear for 5 minutes and get a temporary stay issued by the big man until he can review the case more throroughly and probably get it commuted. But he doesn't appear to have the conviction about the case to do that.

Being forced to prove your innocence happens all the time.

Let me tell you a true story of my life. I was a foster parent for years. A biological mother accused me of child abuse for the express purpose of getting her child returned to her quicker. This happened during a time when a local foster parent was recently found guilty of killing a child with a claw hammer, so the Department of Human Services was on notice.

Wayne County, the county where the biological mother was based, asked Washtenaw County, where I live, to interview me for them. So they did. And at the end of their 30 day investigation, Wayne County showed to Washtenaw that they had done absolutely no work of their own and were upset that the Washtenaw County interview recommended unsubstantiating the charge. Wayne specifically asked Washtenaw to just substantiate it and have it done, after, again, doing no research of their own. They never talked to the doctor, they never got a second opinion (even though the investigating doctor said in his report that the mother pressured him to label the injury as child abuse), they never did...anything.

Now, substantiating, what does that mean? That means that for all intents and purposes I would be guilty of child abuse without ever facing a jury. I'd be unable to become a teacher (which I was going to school for at the time), the adoption that I was working on would be canceled (and was on hold during that time), and all the other stigma that come with it. If that happened, I could ask for a review by the head of the local DHS office, who could choose whether to uphold the substantiation or withdraw it. There was no time table for how long he had to decide on it, and I discovered that even the 30 day investigation took, in the end, nine months, during which time I was very cooperative and agreed to several demeaning measures in order to try to speed the process along. I was even, around the five month mark, willing to take a polygraph, which was taken around the seven month mark, and passed, and still the investigation went two more months.

So, in the absence of Wayne investigating, Washtenaw launched an investigation and found that there was no reason to suspect I was an abuser other than the original doctor statement, which states on it that there was pressure outside of the doctor's medical opinion. A second opinion (which Michigan law says is required...unless DHS doesn't do it...honest, it says that) was never sought. Washtenaw again pressed for unsubstantiation, and again Wayne, who had done nothing, denied it.

Wayne then launched their own investigation and couldn't even find the doctor who made the original report. Couldn't find. A doctor. Who has to be licensed. Couldn't find him. And still. Insisted on substantiation. A group that was so incompetent that they couldn't even find their only real credible witness still pressed for me to get blackballed.

Eventually, I was unsubstantiated due to the fact that Washtenaw County had ethical investigators who actually made every effort to find the truth of the case, but had I lived 20 miles further east, I would have been screwed. And never seen a jury. So I have a lot of sympathy for Troy Anthony Davis. But I still realize that innocent people will occasionally get screwed by the justice system.

I don't agree that the Board of Pardon's and Paroles can be truly accused of being blood thirsty after 22 years and granting clemency three times.

I'm not sure about his innocence or guilt. From what I can gather the guy that shot Cooper and the one that killed MacPhall we're the same person.As far as I can tell that person was either Davis or Coles. There are a couple of items that seemed pretty flimsy to me. I'm not sure how a jury composed of seven black jurists and five white ones violates his right to an impartial jury (not trying to sound lawyerly there). That sounds pretty evenly split since race was the only variable that I could find mentioned it seemed that it was the pertinent one.
Davis also challenged the electric chair as cruel and unusual punishment. The judge basically said "You should have brought that up sooner [than 2000]". I'd tend to agree with the judge on that. The sentencing was in 1990, why should they enter into a discussion about the manner of execution ten years later?

The strongest arguments I was able to find were the witnesses that changed their testimony. Not all of them have, but several have. Apparently they have looked into these in the years of argument. There is no way that I can really have much of an opinion about how reliable these are without reading the file. There are lots of reasons for people to change their minds about their testimony. There are lots of reasons for them to keep the same testimony. How can we know what those reasons are?

@SD - I was more speaking to our Criminal Justice system. Your story sucks and I'm glad it worked out. But the fact is, had it been substantiated and they brought charges, you still would have had a trial and I've no doubt you would have been foudn not guilty and everything cleared up. Unfortunately, some of the damage would already have been done and not easily undone, like the adoption issues. But with no MD to put on the stand and no cooberating evidence, you would have been foudn not guilty.

As far as needing to prove innocence goes, it does happen often in civil courts. Divorces are a good example. It's assumed the mother is fit but if an accusation of unfit parenting comes against the father, he has to fight long and hard to prove his innocence.

Got it Draug, hanging out with the wrong people forfeits your right to life whether guilty or not.

Bottom line is this.

He is going to die because of politics. No one wants to overrule this thing and face the slain officers family who have rabidly supported execution.

Had it been substantiated and charges filed, it would have been several more months of my life beyond the nine months I already endured when I'd be under a cloud of suspicion, and potentially jailed, for...nothing, really. I don't know about everyone else, but every month of my life, every day of my life, is something I treasure enough to not be okay with just saying, "Well, that sucks but it happens."

I'm sure Davis feels the same way.

"He is going to die because of politics. No one wants to overrule this thing and face the slain officers family who have rabidly supported execution."

If anything he's going to die for having lousy lawyers. I don't blame the officer's family for wanting the death penalty enforced. The federal courts are inhibited in overuling the original verdict by the "Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" that limits their authority in this area. The State officials may not want to face the officers family, but they probably don't want to face the 660,000 people who signed the pettition to grant him clemency either.

@SD - I agree. I was saying you'd be vindicate din the end, but it would suck beyond the worst suckage possible (althouhg you'd probably gat conditional bail) as it would cost you your job for a time and even once found not guilty put an irrepairable stain on your record.

@SC - You run with the bulls, you get gored. You live a gangsters life and you will go down, whether you did the crime or not. You run with cop killers, you *are* guilty by association. I'm not saying it's right or fair. I'm saying it is the way of life.