How about this mr Z.? The courts said flat out that they will allow the execution of someone who is questionably guillty. That means that they are not sure of his guilt. And yet he was not given any relief from death. I will argue more with your interpretation of herrera later.
When Paris Carriger brought both his constitutional and innocence claims before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, he was still denied relief. The chief witness against Carriger was a police informant, Robert Dunbar, who was given immunity for three felonies in exchange for his testimony. Later Dunbar admitted that it was he, not Carriger, who had committed the murder and that he had lied at the trial. He even admitted his guilt in court and again just before his death. (Dunbar was inconsistent in his recantation, at times taking back his admission of guilt.)
When a three judge panel of the Court of Appeals reviewed this new evidence, they concluded that, “Dunbar’s recantation does, however, show his general unreliability as a witness. . . . We therefore entertain serious doubts about Dunbar’s credibility, and these doubts are particularly troubling because the government relied heavily on Dunbar’s testimony in prosecuting Carriger.”
Doubt about the government’s chief witness led to doubt about Carriger’s guilt: “[W]e acknowledge,” the court wrote, “that Carriger is not unquestionably guilty. Compared to many other capital cases we have seen, the evidence of guilt here is not overwhelming.” However, the court would still not grant Carriger any relief: “The thinness of the prosecutor’s case, however, is an insufficient basis on which to grant relief under Herrera and its progeny, which put the burden on the petitioner to show he is unquestionably innocent. This Carriger has not done.” Clearly, innocent defendants face a daunting task in trying to avoid execution under this standard.
I am not a lawyer, and it’s been a long time since my college law classes, but I have a question.
I understand that the Supreme Court is charged with reviewing procedural questions only. But don’t they have the power to deny review but remand the case back to the state for retrial?
I seem to recall they can, but maybe I’m just making it up.
Every single person in the world is “questionably guilty”. I think that you, old scratch murdered my father. ergo you are questionably guilty.
Almost every convict maintains his innocence. They are **all ** questionably guilty. It is not teh Supreme Court’s job to re-try every capital case.
Hererra clearly stated that the execution of an innocent man was unconstitutional. Stop trying to hang your hat on a twisted interpretation of that case.
You don’t really buy this argument do you MR. Z? The job of a jury in a death penalty case especially (since someone’s life is at stake) is to determine guilt beyond all doubt. If someone is “questionably guilty” then there are definetely reasonable doubts to wheter they commited the crime. Are you stating that those people should be executed?
**
No, but to set the standards so high as they did. To insist that someone unquestionably prove their innocence is unjust. You yourself stated that eveyone is questionably guilty. How is someone supposed to unquestionably prove their innocence 10 or 20 years afte the fact. Especially if the trial is based solely or mostly on the testimony of perfidious witnesses.
**
No it did not. You seem to forget passages that you yourself quoted
and also from Arnold
So you can be inocent and present facts of your innocence. But, because it takes too many rescources to actually try someone, those facts better be extraordinary. In other words you can be innocent, but if the proof isn’t enough to judge you “unquestionably innocent” then you can still be put to death. Belief that new found evidence will find me innocent is not enough to escape death row.
Let me clarify re: my last statement that I wasn’t referring to Herrera’s case specifically, but situations similar to his that either exist now or might exist in the future, where evidence of a death row inmate’s innocence is much stronger than Herrera’s (not that I know what the evidence in Herrera was). Given SuaSponte’s argument of res judicata I see too much potential, as does oldscratch, for demonstrably innocent people to be put to death.
Let’s take the case of Gary Graham for a moment. He was convicted of a murder that occurred in Texas in 1981. The only witness who identified him as the culprit claims she saw his face for a few seconds from 40 feet away at night. There were seven other witnesses that night, one of whom stood next to the killer only a few minutes before the crime occurred, and she states it was not Graham. Additionally there are four people, all of whom passed polygraph tests, who state Gary was with them, miles away from the scene, on the night of the murder. There is no forensic evidence whatsoever linking Gary to the crime.
Pretty compelling evidence for his innocence, wouldn’t you think? Unfortunately this came to light some 12 years after the trial, while Texas only allows 30 days after conviction for the introduction of new evidence. Herrera, based as it is on examination of court procedure and not exculpatory evidece, denied Graham relief after the Texas state court denied a new trial.
Admittedly, Graham’s defense lawyers in the original trial assumed he was guilty and did no investigation at all into witness statements and the lack of forensic evidence, but it seems illogical to me that this aspect of the case should be the focus for providing relief of the death sentence rather than actual evidence of his innocence.
In any case, Graham’s appeals are exhausted and his execution date is set for June 22. A demonstrably innocent man is set to be put to death, and the courts have done nothing to stop it. It strikes me as completely unlawful, and I do not hesitate in calling it murder.
This is why I don’t look to the courts and the legal system as a whole to provide relief from the death penalty. Public pressure on officials such as Bush and serious activism are the key - it’s what has brought the death penalty into the spotlight these days.
they can’t, which is why the standard is Reasonable doubt. The Supremes noted that there is a difference between proving one’s innocence teh first time around and doing the same the 3rd or fourth time around. Hererra was different because he had been * convicted* and therefore was not technically innocent.
Like this?
or
If you are charged, and they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime, yes, you can be convicted. No suprise there.
Why are you getting stuck on Herrera? It seems to me that the most reasonable argument is that the time frame to remit exculpatory evidence needs to be extended.
Let’s move past Herrera for a moment Mr. Z. What do you feel an apropriate ammount of time for submiting evidence should be. Also, at what point do you feel evidence is enough to prompt a new trial, or free someone, or simply commute the sentance to life. Could there be a case where the person obviously shouldn’t be freed but enough evidence is presented that they should not be killed?
I don’t know what a good time frae would be. On one hand, I can see the argumetn for it being forever.
But I can see that causing interminable appeals. I would do it this way. there is no time limit, but you get 4 shots at presenting new evidence. Use up the four and you are done.
I could also see a process for leaving the convict encarcerated and taking away the death sentence.
I am also convinced that the Gov’t sometimes uses people for its own ends. This is the strongest argument I know of for the bill of rights.
Earlier I accepted, for the moment, an estimate of 400 innocents executed 1900-2000. I stated, that, as I knew that a very large amount of these were black men, executed in prewar South, basicly for “being black” (white man is dead, someone points finger at balck man & says “he did it!!”, a short trial is done, then the hanging.) I accepted, as an estimate, one innocent per year in recent years (post 60’s). I was wrong. There have been NONE. I quote: “Opponents of the Death Penalty are unable to point to a single case, in modern American law, in which an innocent man or woman was actually put to death” (Wm A Rusher- Distinguished Fellow, Claremont Institute). That’s NONE- ZERO- ZIP- NADA, a number lower than one, ZILCH.
And for those who say that “life w/o parole will stop killers from killing again”, I quote Prof. Rusher again: “there are scores of cases of people murdered by ex-convicts who escaped the death penalty for earlier crimes, thanks to the misplaced sentimentality of foes of the death penalty”. So rather than worry about some 3 timer felon, who got a
bad PD, and there is now some holes in the case, let’s worry about the women, children & TRUE “innocents” who we must protect by (regretfully) executing the scum. “Scores vs NONE”.
So we are to assume that no innocent people have been executed in that time span. Is abscence of proof proof of abscence? We know there are many people who have been wrongly convicted in captial cases. We see that from the links in the first couple of posts in this thread.
Who is to provide proof that an innocent man was executed? The State? They already assume the man is guilty. The case is, after all, closed.
The executed persons family, then? The majority of people convicted in capital cases are represented by the Public Defenders offices of their state. This means they are indigent. So, more than likely, anyone who would care about them are also poor. Meaning without the resources to conduct an investigation.
As I see it, and I could be wrong, those people who were exonerated while on death row were incredibly, incredibly lucky.
Spooge, I have “scores”. You find, say 4, 1 per decade since the sixties, and I’ll admit sometimes we are being hasty on the switch.
But do we not have a greater duty to protect the “scores” of complete innocents, than the maybe none- who are executed wrongly?
And there are groups that get behind causes and work to find innocence, you would think that JUST ONCE, they would have proof of innocence- “too late”.
My one and only problem with the death penalty is the problem I have with our justice system. It’s flawed. The link in the 2nd post to this thread spoke of 13 men on death row in Illonois exonerated. Thats just from 1 state.
Hey, if the guy confessed (freely), or if you have him videotape killing someone,then I have no problem with state offing him.
But we don’t often get that kind of clarity. A lot of people are convicted on pretty flimsy evidence. Here in L.A., we’ve just had more than 60 people released from prison after being framed by rougue cops.
If we get rid of the bad cops, unscrupulous D.A.'s, idiot judges, and easily led juries, then I’ll get behind the death penalty 100%.
Here is the problem. After someone is executed, people stop working on the case. WHY? Because these groups are already overworked, they need to spend time proving the innocence of those who still have a chance to be saved. There are other reasons why no one has been found innocent after death. The state, at that point, has no interest in finding someone innocent. They just won’t do it. They won’t give groups access to DNA evidence or labs or anything else. Everyone else tends to shut up too. So of course no one has been found “trully innocent” after death. Does that mean that no one has been executed who was innocent? NO. There are many cases where we can look at the people executed and say “there was not enough evidence to convict and execute them”
They do not always stop working on it after the excecution, or even after it is moot. That case where the Dr. killed his wife ( they based Fugitive on it), umm Shephard?, his son is STILL working on it “to clear his fathers name”. And there are others, like the Rosenbergs (but we finally found out they WERE spies). So, at least ONE of these dedicated truth seekers should have come up with PROOF, but- no.
I saw the most “hilarious” cartoon in the newspaper, I wish I had a link for it.
A judge is saying to a defendent while pointing to a wheel that has the sections labeled: Verdict Overturned, Death, Verdict Overturned, Death, Life in Prison, Not Guilty, Released Due to DNA Test, and Death, “Hey, it’s much cheaper, far qucker and just as accurate as the current Capital Punishment process…”*
I think this would be a great way to improve the system. That way, everybody has the equal and free chance of getting screwed by the system!
From http://www.contracostatimes.com/timeout/columnists/vecianasuarez/stories/x21ana_20000621.htm
And
Finally
My seniments exactly. Just wanted to throw something out for ya all to chew on
Sorry if this looks like a hijack, or I’m repeating something someone has already said, I haven’t been keeping up with the thread the past couple of days.
How would the families find proof of innocence? They are not investigators. They do not have the vast resources of the state. People, naturally, would be unwilling to cooperate with them.
For those who don’t want to read it, the highlights are:
Jonathan Treadway, convicted of sodomizing and murdering his 6 yr old neice. Cleared at retrial when 5 different pathologists testified the girl died of natural causes and could find no evidence of sodomy.
Lawyer Johnson (in Massachusetts) and Gary Beeman (in Ohio) were released when evidence showed that the main prosecution witness in each trial was the actual killer.
I mean, how messed up is that? Convicted of capital murder on the testimony of the actual murder.
This added to the mistaken identities, perjured testimony, and withholding of excuplatory evidence, leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the state is wrong far, far too often.
Sure, but the point is, that the Justice system DID catch all those, and there is no proof that it has not caught ALL of them.
heck, based on that, why even bother with prisons, after all, there is no trial, NONE, that determined investigators cannot find irregularities, and a lot of convictions are reversed on appeal.
I liken that to a cockroach. For every one you see, there’s a bunch you don’t. These are just the ones they’ve admitted to.
Even if they weren’t executed, they were still convicted and imprisoned. I hear prison is kind of a harsh place.
I’m reasonably sure that most of those people who were wrongfully convicted believed at one time that it couldn’t happen to them. I no longer believe that it couldn’t happen to me. I resemble half of the wanted posters for white guys and sometimes have difficulty accounting for my time. (meaning I may not be able to supply an alibi) That, coupled with the fact that I do not have the funds to adequately fight a criminal charge, is enough to get me convicted.
You have asked us to provide proof of innocent people being executed. I’m asking for proof of this statement. Can you show me a case where someone was given life w/o parole and got out and killed again. Not someone who was given 10 years or 20 years. Someone who was given a life sentance, was released and then killed again.
