After 22 years on death row, Paul House has now been cleared of murder charges with Tennessee state prosecutors asking for all charges to be dropped against him. He had been sentenced to die in 1986 and his case is already being used by opponents of the death penalty as an example why states should move to life without parole as the ultimate punishment in this country.
House would have been executed next month but will now be freed.
He was convicted in the 1985 murder of Carolyn Muncey, but there were a great number of problems in the trial and the evidence.
Muncey disappeared of Luttrell, Tennessee was dead after being badly beaten and raped. House was a friend of Muncey’s husband. Police found discrepancies in his alibi and noted that he had unexplained cuts and bruises. Most importantly, they submitted evidence that Muncey’s blood had been found on his jeans. It was later discovered that those samples were contaminated and unreliable. Moreover, later DNA found it was her husband’s semen found on the body. Blood under her fingernails and cigarette butts also did not match House.
In 2006, in House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that he was entitled to a new trial with Justice Kennedy saying that the evidence could point to a different individual.
There is great speculation that Muncey was actually killed by her husband, here.
So he spent 22 years in prison and did not scream about it?
MARK MY WORDS: If I was an innocent man and if I was accused of raping and murdering my neighbor and put into a death row cell, I would protest my innocence EVERY second of my waking moments and then I would scream till my throat burst and I would crush my own head against the cell walls. THAT is how I would protest my innocence; not shutting up and trying to get the bulls*** legal system to free me and losing 22 years of my life.
No offense but this moron spent an incredible 22 YEARS in death row and didn’t rave about it? UNBELIEVABLE. I blame the justice system but I blame this idiot as well.
If this is the case with the many other innocent men who like sheep actually went to their deaths (murders) by the justice system, then they fully deserve it…not for their innocence, but for their gulliable stupidity.
So he spent 22 years in prison and did not scream about it?
MARK MY WORDS: If I was an innocent man and if I was accused of raping and murdering my neighbor and put into a death row cell, I would protest my innocence EVERY second of my waking moments and then I would scream till my throat burst and I would crush my own head against the cell walls. THAT is how I would protest my innocence; not shutting up and trying to get the bulls*** legal system to free me and losing 22 years of my life.
No offense but this moron spent an incredible 22 YEARS in death row and didn\’t rave about it? UNBELIEVABLE. I blame the justice system but I blame this idiot as well.
If this is the case with the many other innocent men who like sheep actually went to their deaths (murders) by the justice system, then they fully deserve it…not for their innocence, but for their gulliable stupidity.
It is very hard to have much faith in our justice system when you hear about things like this time and time again.
lottakatz:
“Dress Rehearsal Philosophy of Life.”
*************
You plagiarist you. That’s the subtitle for the Christian Bible!
The subtext to a statement like ‘kill ’em all etc.’ is the subtext that informs all religion IMO, At some point the blindfold will be lifted and Lady Justices scales will balance. Generally after death and generally irrelevant of human action, so sins of omission and commission like a failure of empathy, charity, compassion have no consequences in the moment.
Neither do the more ugly impulses like indifference and ambivalence which taken to the extreme and diffused throughout an entire country, leads to the ovens. Or the torture chambers or a public policy that kills legally innocent people now and then.
Consequently, IMO, many religious persons use this subtext as an excuse for not making informed or considered decisions. They evade responsibility for their opinions and actions (as well as their government’s) because it’ll all shake out in the end and everything will be set right that was wrong in life. I call this the Dress Rehearsal Philosophy of Life.
Just sayin’.
Bron98:
“How do you keep from screwing with people like that on a regular basis?
I suppose if one is a lawyer it is better not to be a provocateur.”
***********
Because when it’s all said and done, “screwing with people,” is the mark of the lesser man. We’re supposed to be about a lot more than that–but it is fun to tweak the pompous once in a while.
GWMom
I’m not arguing with you. I have nothing to prove to some random woman in America that I will never ever meet.
Think what you want of me.
But frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn!!
God bless you!!
Sally you wrote:
I base my belief on “letting God sort them out” on
Romans 12:19-21
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good
Clearly, you don’t like me very much. That’s okay.
That I never served in the military is not a matter of whether or not I could. I never chose to serve because I would not care to shoot and kill people. and last time I checked military service was voluntary which means that like many other choices women are permitted to make military service is but one. What qualifications did you need other than the ability to sign your name on the recruitment form? So you were in the military. Does this grant you any special rights with regard to hunting down people who commit crimes that you don’t like? I did not think that this came with an honorable discharge.
You did not really answer my questions, like for instance, whether you believe you are above the law and if you granted yourself this via your religious beliefs. Are you above the law? Is being able to shoot straight your main qualification in deciding who deserves a bullet through the head and who does not? Try to keep in mind that this was your remedy to certain crimes. I prefer to trust the law.
Congratulations on your course of study. Nowhere is it written that you must study law. Respiratory therapy is a decent way to make a living even if it is kind of limiting. A lack of education is not pejorative if it is accurate and if you are going to visit a political blog, one where some knowledge of and fondness for law is sort of expected there are just going to be times when purposeful ignorance of law will not get you the response you may be seeking.
I believe that you ae entitled to your opinions, as I wrote in my original response to you and again to Patty. Did you not read that part? Additionally, you opinions are exactly as valuable to you as mine are to me. No more, no less. I do find your ideas humorous if not entirely laughable and kind of dangerous. You seem to find my ideas pretty worthless, which is your right.
As for your bible quote, this pretty much says that it is not up to you to take vengeance, and if you did put a bullet in someone’s head, it would not please god very much at all. your notion that you are blessed with the ability to shoot straight does not mean you should. If only god has the ability to judge then maybe you should find a nice church blog. In this country we uphold the rule of law when considering how to act. So feeding your hungry enemy is encouraged. Where does your bible tell you to shoot and kill the enemy you believe (you– not a jury or judge) to be guilty of some crime? Does your bible give you the right to do this?
I have an idea. Why don’t we refrain from making our discussion here about who is the better person. Clearly, compared to you i am not the better person at all and am most likely going to hell according to your beliefs.
mespo727272: …”but here DNA does not exonerate our mischievous friend. This is just a second guess of the jury’s verdict based on notions of reasonable doubt. That notion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder …”
I see the notion of reasonable doubt as quantifiable. If the DNA doesn’t convict due to procedural failings in the CoC or outright admitted errors and that evidence was in large part persuasive to the jury then the jury was misled regarding the weight of the evidence. It may well have tainted the decision making process. I think our system errs on the side of caution when this kind of error (with the objective evidence) is found and considering the stakes I find that conservative approach appropriate.
mESPO:
Thank you and that was a very humerous story. I bet that doc had a fit over that.
How do you keep from screwing with people like that on a regular basis?
I suppose if one is a lawyer it is better not to be a provocateur.
M72, Thanks,
Bron, for asking.
Bron98:
Not really an elemental question. First we generally know the answer before we start, having talked to our own experts, but we are seeking to either “square the box” on the opinion and thus pin it down, or make points about the assumptions which are usually the weakest part of any opinion. We try not to fight with the expert on his level of expertise, say for example arguing wave mechanics with a physicist, but we can attack the testing process, the witness’ bias or prejudice, and his methodology as compared to generally accepted methodology within his field of specialty.
Sometimes we have some fun like the time my law partner asked a medical doctor about his experience testifying in medical malpractice cases for defendants. In that case, the good defense doctor was asked about how many other cases he had testified on behalf of the defendant physician. He proudly answered that he was no “paid whore” and that he only got involved in these cases where an injustice was occurring and that he had done so only once before this one about five years ago when a colleague was charged with performing an improper C-section.” My law partner replied, “Why doctor there must be some mistake because I think the record shows you were asked to testified twice in cases like this before?” “Preposterous,” replied this fine man of medicine, “I don’t do that sort of thing as a living.” Well, replied my law partner, “You weren’t paid for the second testimony because that time it was a case where you were sued for malpractice and the jury awarded the plaintiff two million dollars. Does that refresh your memory?” That case settled shortly thereafter.
Mespo:
how do you ask questions in a deposition? If you ask too many or the wrong ones dosent the other side get a pretty good idea about what you are thinking and how you are going to try your case. Or is it all out in the open no secrets or hidden strategies.
Very elemental question I know.
Mike:
I ‘m not a death penalty guy either given what we both know about the justice system and its propensity to buy emotion over reason in high profile cases (California v. OJ as the most egregious that comes to mind). Even so, I accept the judgment of my fellows who overwhelmingly favor the death penalty in all horrific murder cases excepting only those on which they are asked to serve as jurors. My point was about appellate review and universally applicable. I don’t want some half-witted Bill O’Reilly-type taking up a cause for every convicted felon under the guise of justice but really on account of publicity, and twisting every inconsistency to force an appeal based on manufactured after-discovered evidence.
Patty C:
Growl I must. We are in day two –count them– of the neuropsychologist’s deposition having already stopped once for a motion hearing. We plod along on the endless trek of personality tests and interpretative data.
lottakatz:
“mespo727272, Can we argue for the integrety of the process on the one hand as reason to uphold a verdict
(”None of us were privy to the nonverbal ques and information the jury observed. I am willing to trust their judgment as to the credibility of witnesses.”)
but ignore flaws, serious flaws in the same process ”
*********
Here’s a shocker: all verdicts are in some sense flawed because imperfect people render them and imperfect judges confirm them. The point is that the accused deserves due process not perfect process. No one wants the factually innocent to suffer but the system has to render the best justice it can render at the time. Rarely is the evidence in tried cases consistent to a moral certitude. Here the point is debatable but the decision has been made to the satisfaction of the affected citizenry. To overturn it and re institute the process after all this time insured that the prosecution would have to relent given the deterioration of the evidence. I have no problem with presentation of evidence of factual innocence long after the decision — like DNA results– but here DNA does not exonerate our mischievous friend. This is just a second guess of the jury’s verdict based on notions of reasonable doubt. That notion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (since reasonable people can differ in judgments) and this picture has already been painted and signed.
Patty if you’re offering one to me, I’ll gladly take it!
mespo727272, Can we argue for the integrety of the process on the one hand as reason to uphold a verdict
(“None of us were privy to the nonverbal ques and information the jury observed. I am willing to trust their judgment as to the credibility of witnesses.”)
but ignore flaws, serious flaws in the same process
(from CNN.com article “Forensic evidence found Muncey’s blood on House’s jeans, but questions were later raised whether the samples were contaminated en route to an FBI lab for analysis.
Subsequent state-of-the art DNA testing conducted after the conviction showed that semen on the victim belonged to her husband, not House. Blood under her fingernails and cigarette butts discovered near the wooded crime scene also did not match the accused.”)
in making that argument? What we needed is a new, proper investigation and a new trial to actually find what approximates truth.
Hemingways ‘Death in the Afternoon’ cocktail?
Have one on me.
GWLawMom
Let’s get some things straight here. I don’t have any sons, I’ve got 2 daughters. And yes, I served in the military, something you apparently could never accomplish yourself.
Don’t you dare call me a person who lacks adequate education.
So what if I’m a mom who is currently in school studying respiratory therapy and not law? Do you think that does not entitle me to an opinion?
You can mock me for my belief in God all you want, you’re a stranger and your opinion about my beliefs is meaningless.
I base my belief on “letting God sort them out” on
Romans 12:19-21
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good
Since God is going to take up your cause and see to it that justice is done, you can lay it down. You don’t have to carry anger and bitterness and resentment and revenge. Indeed you dare not. Jesus warned that an unforgiving heart will destroy you in the end (Matthew 6:15; 18:35).
I said that I cannot lie about the fact that I would want to take revenge in my own hands, but I would choose not to.