In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday ordered an evidentiary hearing on innocence claims of Troy Davis, who is on death row in Georgia for the 1989 murder of police officer Mark MacPhail. Not only did the Supreme Court stop the execution, but it created new law on the right of the defendant to present such evidence — a holding that drew the outrage of the conservative wing of the Court. While only a paragraph long, the unsigned opinion represents the first such order in decades for a new hearing to “receive testimony and make findings of fact”. Justice Scalia called it a “fool’s errand.”
Seven of the witnesses against Mr. Davis have recanted and others have implicated the man who first identified Davis as the gunman.
Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that “[t]he substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.”
Justice Scalia said that, after numerous appeals (with the new evidence reviewed in the form of affidavits), the remand was a “sure loser” and a “fool’s errand.” More importantly, Scalia noted “[t]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
Yet, in 1993, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in Herrera v. Collins, that (while not present in that case) “we may assume, for the sake of argument in deciding this case, that in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief.”
Both websites for McPhail and Davis have weighed in on the decision.
I discuss the case on CNN yesterday, here.
For the full story, click here.
By the way, how does His Lordship reconcile his comment, to wit:
“This court has never held, that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
with the entire purpose of the old writ of a coram nobis?
Did someone say Justice?
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm
Ah, what would life be like without the epistemic ‘corrections’ of His Lordship Scalia.
Mike,
I am so glad to know that I am not the only one who wishes that when Scalia and Thomas die God would take them to hell and drop them off. What bastards!
This reminds me of the Multatuli story “Barbertje must hang.” A man, Lothario, is accused of murdering Barbertje, but he claims to be innocent and “a good man”. When Barbertje shows up in court, proving the man not to be a murderer, he’s hanged anyway for being vainglorious. The story, in its original Dutch, is here: http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/mult001maxh01_01/mult001maxh01_01_0002.htm. A discussion of why the saying is “Barbertje must hang”, in stead of “Lothario must hang,” is here: http://www.onzetaal.nl/advies/barbertje.php.
I don’t believe in heaven and hell, but almost wish it were true to imagine the astonishment on Scalia’s face as he is sent to an eternity of fire. No man is more loathsome in this country today, simply because of the false patina of respectability his appointment to SCOTUS has bestowed on him.
A Conversation:
“Actual innocence be damned! It’s process, and process only. What do you think these trials are for if not a search for process. The Truth is only a fleeting concern,” thundered Lord High Chancellor Scalia.
To which Henry David Thoreau added: “The law will never make men free, it is men that have to make the law free.”
“Circumstances may accumulate so strongly even against an innocent man, that directed, sharpened, and pointed, they may slay him,” replied Mr. Dickens (“The Mystery of Edwin Drood”). “Or didn’t you know that, Lord High Chancellor?”
“Don’t care,” came the word from the throne.
For a police state to function the law must be both capricious and callous.
BTW, if Pres. Obama gets an opportunity to appoint another woman to the Supreme Court, Judge Rosemary Barkett would be an outstanding choice.
To Mike A:
I’m not a lawyer.
Am I to assume from your comments that there is/are no definition/standard of “due process” that require the presumption of NON-perjured testimony?
Scalia,
Sit on this:
Relatives of those killed in a 1997 massacre march Tuesday in San Cristóbal, Mexico. A court ordered 22 of those convicted freed.
MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s Supreme Court ordered 22 indigenous people freed from prison on Wednesday after finding that federal prosecutors used forged evidence and false testimony to implicate them in a 1997 massacre in a tiny hamlet in Chiapas.
Link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009651376_mexico13.html
Originally Posted on wrong thread. This would be nice if we could delete our own posts, correct errors etc.
Jay:
To add to your post:
Yet these words appeared in a dissenting opinion issued by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on Monday. Let us be clear precisely what this means. If a defendant were convicted, after a constitutionally unflawed trial, of murdering his wife, and then came to the Supreme Court with his very much alive wife at his side, and sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (namely that his wife was alive), these two justices would tell him, in effect: “Look, your wife may be alive as a matter of fact, but as a matter of constitutional law, she’s dead, and as for you, Mr. Innocent Defendant, you’re dead, too, since there is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you’re innocent.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-18/scalias-catholic-betrayal/?cid=bs:archive16
Mike A,
One could only hope and pray for that day to come. When Buddha said what he said about Rehnquist, it could not have been said better. But true.
Of course it can be said of virtually every person wrongfully executed that “every judicial and executive body that has examined (insert innocent person’s name here in possessive form)
claim has been unpersuaded.” Justice Scalia’s point is that if due process has been provided, the perversion of the proceedings through perjured testimony is immaterial. That is, if the conviction is procedurally sound, nothing else matters. As for Justice Thomas, were Justice Scalia to leap from the pinnacle of the Washington Monument, Justice Thomas would happily follow him, tail wagging all the way down.
Buddha,
ASS KISSING, SMACK SMOOCH. I could not have said it better.
Mespo,
Saw you here for a post yesterday. Has the new kitchen taken over your soul? They do have Kitchen Witches, I am sure an exceriosm might be in order. The catholic church has priests that specialize in this area of practice. If you need the name and location, just ask.
But first you have to realize that you are possessed.
Scalia.
A Cautionary Tale Since 1936.
In most countries, someone with his finely tuned sense of ethics would have been steered toward a career in organized crime or possibly running an abattoir/sausage factory in the Sinclair Lewis mold.
Seriously, if Rehnquist sounds saner than ANYONE on a given issue? Need I say more?
“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
Wow. In what country does Scalia and Thomas believe it OK to put to death an innocent man. Yes, you guessed it – The USA. I guess a fair trial in their opinion is one in which witnesses have now admitting to lying.
“In a strongly-worded dissent from Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Scalia called Davis’ claim a “sure loser” and noted that “every judicial and executive body that has examined petitioner’s claim has been unpersuaded.”
“Transferring his petition to the District Court is a confusing exercise that can serve no purpose except to delay the state’s execution of its lawful criminal judgment,” wrote Scalia.”
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GEORGIA_EXECUTION?SITE=NYONI&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
From what I posted yesterday,about this story.
Regarding this story,as I said then.I wanted to see who the disenters were,and they were who I thought they were.
Scalia noted “[t]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
Scalia meant to say, if the state has expended its resources to convict you even if you are not guilty your relief does not lie with the Sct. You have had all of the actual Due Process you are going to get. Zap.
Yet, in 1993, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in Herrera v. Collins, that (while not present in that case) “we may assume, for the sake of argument in deciding this case, that in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief.”
The rumored former lover of Eleanor, wait just a minute, if a convicted defendant has some degree of innocence, let us put that issue to rest before they are zapped.