It should work the other way around.
He is innocent until proven guilty. He could not have been “proven guilty” without the testimony that the witness now says was a lie. I then throw out that testimony and look at the case again. And there isn’t a case. So, my default is “not guilty.” That’s the starting point.
OK.
You acknowledge that there’s some doubt about this.
Too late to know for sure, ever, but there’s some doubt – some percentage that we could probably assign to our confidence in the guilt of Cantu - right?
You don’t say that we have definitely executed an innocent man. You don’t even say we’ve PROBABLY executed an innocent man. But you acknowledge there’s enough doubt to give rise to questions. Yes?
My next question is: how many executions have to happen before you believe that we have probably executed an innocent man? In other words, if I throw five dice, it’s very unlikely that all five will come up ‘6’.
But if I throw them enough times, it’s VERY likely that at least one of those times, they’ll all come up ‘6’.
And if the number of throws get really high, we can say that it’s a virtual certainty that we’ll have at least one throw where they all come up ‘6’ - right?
DNA has exonerated men on Death Row. You acknowlege that in some of those cases, the men were factually, actually, really innocent - right? They were not executed, but they were sentenced to death. DNA was able to prove their innocence. So perhaps there have been other flawed verdicts where the DNA evidence was lost, or never collected, or where the crime didn’t inlcude DNA, and the mistake was never discovered - right?
My question to you is: how many executions of men on Death Row would it take before you would concede that PROBABLY, one of them had been innocent?
And how many before you’d concede that it was a virtual certainty that one of them was innocent?
This would be fine if you didn’t immediately qualify this statement every time with this:
Lots of other evidence? Yes, there was lots of other evidence like, say, the street address the murder took place at and the caliber of weapon used. If you mean “there was lots of other evidence besides Moreno’s identification that shows that Cantu should have recieved the death penalty,” you’re wrong. Moreno’s identification is the sine qua non of Cantu’s death penalty.
Take out “likely” and put in “definitely” or “inarguably” and we’re there.
No? The sole eyewitness to a death penalty capital murder recanting not admissable? What in God’s name would make you think that?
If it’s inadmissable, it ain’t evidence.
No, but it puts the irredeemable stink of shit all over the sole evidence that sent a man to the death chamber.
Again, “likely” doesn’t cut it. If Cantu was still alive, this would be undeniable evidence of actual innocence, he’d get a new trial which would not be prosecuted for lack of evidence against him, and he’d be free. The fact that he’s dead is an ugly black eye all over the Texas legal system.
I never said he was an “unmitigated liar” those are your words. I even admitted many, many posts ago that he very well might remember the episode differently now- perhaps he now doesn’t rember canut. So, he’s not a liar, maybe his memory has changed over the years. Or maybe he’s lying now, out of guilt or for some other reason. Or maybe he commited perjury then. We don’t know.
Bricker- I don’t know. So far there has been less than 1000 men executed, so I still think that chance that one of them was innocent is small. But I agree that some day they’ll execute an innocent man if they keep on at this rate. And, %-wise, it’ll be in Texas. 
Pravnik- do you really think that a statement made to a newspaper and not under oath is generally admissable? Now, if Moreno had made his recantation before Cantu was executed, and then repeated it under oath at an Appeals heraing, then it’d be admissable. It’s interesting that to you Moreno’s statemnt not under oath and not on th ewitness satnd is "admissable’ while Cantu’s bragiing to his schoolmates that he killed Gomez, or the fact that he shot a police officer 4 times isn’t evidence. Whoa! :dubious:
Only if the SOL was still open and Morales repeated his new statement under oath. Which he hasn’t. But he did make his original testimony under oath. So, I am inclined to give it more weight. Nor would it be “undeniable evidence of *actual * innocence”. Being found “not guilty” is not the same as “ACTUAL innocence” and you know that. :rolleyes:
I haven’t done the proper research, but I don’t believe the issue is one of “mistaken” identity, but rather of perjury by the eyewitness. I wouldn’t be surprised that Moreno and his lawyer will later say that it wasn’t the case, but, from what I’ve read, it appears Moreno is saying he knowingly lied under oath. I don’t think it’s a problem with the photo arrays or the lineup, but rather of perjury.
The San Antonio Express Newsis reporting that the DA is looking into possible perjury charges against Moreno. I sincerely hope we get more than just a comment to a reporter as evidence Moreno committed perjury.
I hope there is a inquiry into the issue, so we have some more evidence before declaring that an innocent man was executed. There are certainly valid questions that need to be determined.
If when you ask if I “think” this would be admissable you mean do I “know for a fucking fact” that his statements to reporters would be admissable at a new trial, then I would have to say yes, I do.
The fact that Cantu was executed before a new trial could be held is kind of the problem we’re pointing out.
Here replace “you,” meaning me, with “Texas Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure,” meaning the law, and you’re on the right track.
“Evidence of actual innocence” is exactly the term used by the courts for after-the-fact exculpatory material of this nature. It does not mean “dispositive of actual innocence.”
Yes, you are, by refusing to accept any cite except the court transcripts, and those you will only accept if they are linked to, which they can not be. I can only hope that you are not so stupid as to see the inherent difficulty here, but I sense that I do so in much the same spirit as I fondly hold out hope that I might score tomorrow night at Fabric.
Oh, well done. You have shown that there is evidence that a crime was committed. Unfortunately for you, that evidence incriminates you just as much as it does Cantu. Can I come round and shoot you now?
I suspect Bricker would like to find out if you have some magic source of information unavailable to us mere mortals. If “trying to find out what you know, and how” is a devious form of debate, then count me in with the deviants, because the only alternative is to join the fucking loons. You appear to be taking the quite special line of actively maintaining your ignorance so as to avoid being forced to debate the facts of the case. While this may be a wildly successful technique for maintaining your splendidly daft convictions, I hope you can see why everyone else is underwhelmed.
Well, yeah; he suspected that you knew fuck all, and expected you to illustrate said suspicion by your answer. This isn’t devious, this is basic fucking debate. If we were arguing about whether 1+1=2, and I asked you whether you knew what “+” meant, would that be excessively sneaky on my part? Is that really a trick question? Because if you think it is, then I’ve really got to stop mocking your mental powers, and start in with wholesale pity.
Yes, it does, right there where it says the words “the Judge”. I can see how this might have confused you; after all, those words have several letters each and are quite tricky, but there it is. Is there anything else I can help you with? Was it the definite article that foxed you, or the word “Judge”? Here’s the whole article if you care to read it. It’s really quite interesting, and contains an informative interview with the cop who eventually got Moreno to identify Cantu, who incidentally also agrees that the testimony was a load of cock. But I’m sure you know better than him, too.
Oh goody, it’s time to move the goalposts again!!!
I’m not 100% clear on it either, but from what I’ve read it seems like he’s now saying that the suggestive nature of the lineup and other police questioning are what induced him to perjure himself, which is not exactly what was argued on appeal. His credibility was never questioned, only his memory and ability to correctly identify his shooter. It’s not exactly the same, but if I’m reading it right it’s uncomfortably close. I’d have to read more on case law involving police coercion in photo lineups.
I think so too, but from your article it appears he’s repeating his story to more and more people. Thanks for the article, by the way; all I get is the local and Dallas papers and they’ve been seemingly silent on the whole thing.
I agree. I just can’t think what else could be turned up now other than what we now know, though.
I’m not sure what Moreno is claiming now. I’m guessing he told the reporter that Cantu is “innocent” but did not relate much details. Now that he has an attorney, my guess is he’ll try to hedge and say that he didn’t really commit perjury, but rather… well, he’ll find a way to spin it.
I for one would like to see Moreno’s statements clarified. Did he lie? Does he know who did the murder? I’d also like to see statements from the police department officers involved. There is so much I personally don’t know, that I find Garza unbelievable and Moreno vague.
Uh, I covered this.
13 of 157 inmates on Illinois’ death row were EXONERATED. That’s a rate of 8.28%.
The odds that you could go through 999 executions, with an error rate like that, and none of them be innocent is .0002, or 2 out of 10,000.
No. You didn’t. The exonerated were not executed. DrDeth’s point (if it can be said that he even has one) dealt not the percentage of people convicted of capital murder, but of those actually executed.
Are we to believe there is some distinction here between being on Death Row and actuslly being executed such that the accuracy of convictions for the group of men executed was higher than for the men not yet executed?
In other words – why should we not believe that the accuracy rate for capital murder convictions is accurately shown by the stat above, and it applies equally to those actually executed? What factors distinguish the executed group and make us MORE confident in the accuracy of their convictions?
…or 1 out of 5,000. Which means that we need to execute 4,995,000 people in order to make sure that none of them are innocent, if I’m doing the math right. We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us.
Daniel
Of course. The number of innocent people convicted after trial is much more than the number of innocent people convicted after the appeal process. It’s pretty much the main reason for appeals, to make sure persons get a fair trial and are not innocent of the crimes.
Do most executions do have a rather frantic pre-execution appeals process for last-ditch efforts, or is that something I’ve picked up erroneously from bad TV?
And if those appeals do happen, do they ever work?
I don’t think any of the people exonerated by the Innocence Project were exonerated during either the direct appeal process or the standard PCR process.
These were all people on Death Row with their standard appeals exhausted.
Your mention of “appeals” is thus a bit unclear to me. Are you referring to the direct appeals process, the regular PCR process in the state, or something else?
I’m talking about people whose normal appeals were behind them, and later granted a habeas based on DNA results.
They did for Robin Lovitt on the day before his scheduled execution:
I was speaking of the entire appellate process, state appeals, habeaus, heck, even throw in pardons and commutations. All of the safeguards of our criminal justice system. Of course the number of innocents decreases with the more safeguards.