USA TODAY's Supreme Court correspondent Joan Biskupic reports that the high court, in an exceptional move, has ordered a U.S. district court in Georgia to hear new testimony in the case of Troy Davis, who was convicted of killing an off-duty police officer nearly two decades ago.
Over the dissent of two justice, the Supreme Court said a lower court judge should determine whether new evidence "clearly establishes" Davis' innocence.
Since his jury conviction 18 years ago, seven of the prosecution's witnesses have recanted their testimony about what happened in a Savannah parking lot the night officer Mark Allen MacPhail was shot dead. Some individuals have also said the prosecution's key witness was the shooter, not Davis.
Judge Scalia and Judge Thomas wrote the dissent, which will surprise no one. What is it with those guys?
Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, calling the court's action "extraordinary ... one not taken in nearly 50 years" and asserting that "every judicial and executive body that has examined (Davis') stale claim of innocence has been unpersuaded."
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that Scalia and Thomas were wrongly assuming, despite the new information, that Davis was guilty. He said the risk of putting an innocent man to death provides "adequate justification" for a new hearing.
What's your opinion? Is it possible for not one but two Justices of the Supreme Court to be "assuming guilt?" Isn't the whole idea of an appeal like this to not assume anything and look at the facts? It seems like the dissenting judges look more at the facts of the earlier court rulings than the facts presented in the appeal, namely that so many witnesses have recanted.
What do you think? Is Troy Davis on his way to being a free man? What does the fact that he's been within hours of execution say about the capital punishment system?
Please leave a comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment