Troy Davis profile: Supporters sought to 'create doubt' not 'prove innocence'

[dkf]

"We believe that we've established substantial doubt in this case," Troy Davis' defense attorney Stephen Marsh said. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles , however, said in their press release that they had "considered the totality of the information presented" and after careful deliberation decided to refuse clemency to the convicted killer that took the life of an off-duty policeman named Mark Allen MacPhail.

The problem lies for the supporters and attorneys of Davis due to their effort to "create doubt" about whether Troy Davis was innocent or guilty instead of providing irrefutable proof that he was innocent. When you look at the decisions rendered thus far in the 42-year-old man's search for freedom, courts kept saying the burden of proof of innocence was missing.

Thus far, despite several stays being afforded Troy Davis in an effort to allow him to prove his innocence, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution , several courts have still yet to hear irrefutable proof of that innocence. Witness statements recanted years later still don't prove a man's innocence.

http://m.examiner.com/examiner/pm_60972/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=OEy1QV4C

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. Which is a bit absurd really...

when the burden of proof in a capital murder trial rests on the prosecution to prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt"; that's the legal standard applied, after all, and when it comes out later that there are significant issues with the testimony the prosecution relied upon to establish their case for guilt, that should seriously undermine the validity of any conviction.

[NaturalHigh]

2. Very true.

[madfloridian]

3. When in America did we have to start "proving innocence"?

Silly me, I thought we had to prove guilt.

[readmoreoften]

5. +1

[readmoreoften]

7. I'm not even sure I can prove innocence in the killing of McPhail

How can anyone "prove innocence"? Especially if they're near a crime scene and especially when witnesses don't count if they're not testifying against you. :crazy:

[sabrina 1]

12. This article is ridiculous and hugely ignorant of the law. You are

correct. No accused person is required to prove their innocence. That burden is on the prosecution. And it must be 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. His lawyers succeeded in creating that doubt and those who were asking him to prove his innocence should not be practicing law in this country.

You are absolutely right that a person cannot prove their innocence, unless they have an air-tight alibi and can prove they were in another place entirely, but that is rare. Suspects in crimes generally are somewhere near the crime scene and once you are accused, you may as well be guilty. That is why the law requires that the burden of proof be on the accusers, and beyond a reasonable doubt.

[TBF]

34. Unbelievable isn't it. nt

[ixion]

4. So a witness testimony is good enough to convict,

but the witness recanting that testimony is not good enough to prove innocence.

That's some 'justice' system we've got. :puke:

[mvd]

6. When that many recant, I'd say there pretty good evidence..

of innocence. What motive would all of them, a juror, and an FBI member have?

[ixion]

8. especially if that was the basis for conviction

which it never should be.

Witness testimony is the same kind of crap used to convict people in things like the Spanish Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials. Without incontrovertible proof, there should be no conviction, and witness testimony can never be relied upon to be incontrovertible.

[sabrina 1]

9. Someone doesn't understand our judicial system and it isn't

Troy Davis' attorneys.

The burden of proof is on the state, it is never on the accused.

All the defense has to do is to create enough doubt so that the jury cannot convict.

They succeeded in doing that, which is apparent by the number of people who now believe he was probably innocent.

It is a fallacy to place the blame on the attorneys.

Those responsible are the judges and courts who refused to recognize the law and act accordingly.

As a result a man was murdered by the state and those who made that decision, despite never proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, are solely responsible for that murder.

[NaturalHigh]

10. The state met its burden of proof twenty years ago.

[sabrina 1]

14. Apparently the state made a mistake 20 years ago.

That's what appeals are for, and during those appeals it became apparent that the state made a mistake. Once that became clear, the state should have done the right thing and lifted the death sentence immediately, then if they felt they could present a better case, they should have given him another trial. Or exonerated him and focused on finding the real killer.

[NaturalHigh]

16. Wow, talk about someone who doesn't understand our judicial system.

He had twenty years of appeals, btw. There is no doubt in my mind that Troy Davis was guilty.

[TeamsterDem]

18. The doubts or lack thereof in your mind aren't at issue here

What's at issue is how a state could carry out any death sentence with so very little evidence and when proof comes later that the first trial was fundamentally flawed.

[NaturalHigh]

20. Again, he had twenty years of appeals to bring up every single issue you point out.

No, my opinion means nothing in this case. Frankly, neither does yours or any other DUers unless you are a lawyer involved with the Davis case. I was simply stating my opinion that the defense has had every opportunity (many more than most defendants get) to refute the original verdict, and every court up to the USSC has ruled against it.

[TeamsterDem]

22. They tried to refute the verdict and their appeals were denied

And an appeal being denied is just that: the judge summarily dismisses it without subjecting the new evidence to the weight of a new jury trial. I'm not sure what sort of opportunity that is precisely, but what I do know is that improper witness tampering/handling is normally grounds for a new trial. But not for Troy Davis, evidently.

What I also know is that two spent casings being "similar" and perhaps coming from the same gun isn't the same as actually being from the same gun. Even the GBI said it was no longer reliable. But the courts - who knows why - simply refused to even allow the appeal to go forward. In other words, much apart from your contention that he had all of these chances, what he had were a bunch of filings which were denied by the court. The bad eyewitnesses? Fuck it. The unreliable ballistics? Fuck them too.

Where's the fairness you allege was present?

[NaturalHigh]

24. I guess my idea of fairness is that he got every opportunity in the courts that everyone else gets.

In fact, he got more than most people get.

[BzaDem]

25. But that opportunity means nothing if the appeals are all asking the wrong question.

Appeals courts look at due process violations and other procedural and legal problems. They generally cannot revisit the facts (or at least have to defer to the facts as presented at trial). The only time new facts generally come into play is when there is ALSO a due process violation.

This was an unusual case, in that the only problems were factual. Not legal. So no, his "opportunity" before the courts really did not mean much.

[NaturalHigh]

27. BzaDem, I read your other well-written reply too.

While I agree with most of what you have written (yes, appeals are mostly procedural), nothing prevents courts from looking at new evidence. In this case, the courts didn't believe the evidence (witness recantations) were enough to overturn the original conviction.

The argument can certainly be made, and I would not disagree, that cases like these are why we should get rid of the death penalty. Taking the Davis case as an example, though, let me ask you this: do you think that the evidence heard by the appellate courts was convincing enough to warrant his release from prison?

[BzaDem]

28. I think it was enough to warrant a new trial.

In general, it is a hard question. You can't have a system where prosecutors are having to constantly reprove every case beyond a reasonable doubt multiple times to prevent releases from prison. In many cases, obviously guilty criminals could not be reconvicted 20 years later if the original witnesses weren't around or for whatever reason couldn't testify again.

But the Supreme Court has turned that reality on its head. You say that nothing prevents appeals courts from looking at new evidence. That is literally true, but it doesnt say what they can do with the evidence. The surpreme court has said that new factual evidence in federal habeas appeals only comes into play when there was also a due process violation. Troy Davis could have had an ironclad case of factual innocence, but as of now there is nothing any court could have done about it without some process problem to hang their ruling on. I suppose the Supreme Court could have reversed Herrera vs. Collins and created a reasonable standard for claims of actual innocence, but the current court majority isn't going to do that.

I believe there should be actual innocence claims allowed, and the standard should be high, but not proof of innocence by clear and convincing evidence. Instead, someone should be given a new trial if a good portion of the original trial evidence was clearly called into question. It should be based on the portion of the evidence that has been recanted, rather than whether or not the defendent can somehow prove a negative (that he didn't do it). The latter can be impossible in many cases, even if ALL the evidence used to convict turned out to be bogus.

Using any standard involving the portion of original evidence that was later determined to be bogus, I think Davis should have been given a new trial.

[NaturalHigh]

29. Thank you for your reply. I respectfully disagree.

Your first paragraph speaks to my main argument against a new trial twenty years later. "You can't have a system where prosecutors are having to constantly reprove every case beyond a reasonable doubt multiple times to prevent releases from prison. In many cases, obviously guilty criminals could not be reconvicted 20 years later if the original witnesses weren't around or for whatever reason couldn't testify again."

No, Troy Davis would not be convicted if he were re-tried today. Can you imagine having to re-try a criminal case twenty years after the crime? In many cases, witnesses from the original trial, even those who were directly affected, might refuse to testify. Memories fade. Evidence degrades or is lost. Hopefully, the transcripts are available, but most likely the prosecutors' notes are not. I think it would be almost impossible to win a case like that two decades later.

Again, if you were to argue that we need to get rid of the death penalty to make absolutely certain an innocent person is never executed, I would not argue. Hell, if you were just to argue that we should get rid of the death penalty, I wold probably not put up much of a fight. I don't believe, though, that Troy Davis was innocent, nor do I believe that all of the evidence, old and new, was not examined fully. At least by our country's legal definition, I believe justice was served. If you think that definition should be changed, there are certainly many arguments to be made.

[BzaDem]

30. I believe there is a difference between fading memories on the one hand, and admitted lies and/or

new information on the other (and such differences should be take into account, in the context of the totality of the original evidence, when deciding whether to order a new trial). So I disagree on that point. But I understand where you are coming from in general.

[NaturalHigh]

31. Thanks. I appreciate your responses, and I respect what you are saying.

I agree with a great many of your points. On whether or not Troy Davis deserved a new trial, though, I guess we'll just have to disagree. That's cool.

[BzaDem]

23. While I understand your point in general, here's why you are wrong in this particular case.

Appeals (particularly federal habeas appeals) primarily look at issues of law. They have to defer greatly to the trial court for most factual questions.

In cases that are reversed on appeal, there was a violation of the law or the Constitution. Once such a violation is established, the court can consider granting a new trial. It is in that new trial that new facts can be considered by the jury. In most cases where someone is found innocent, they also had a due process claim that they were able to use to shoehorn in their new facts and establish their innocence at a new trial.

But in this case, no such legal violation occurred. The case was primarily eyewitness testimony, and 7 out of 9 witnesses recanted or otherwise changed their testimony significantly. Many of them said they were pressured (not illegally, but pressured) by the police, and that influenced what they thought they saw. Some admitted that what they said in trial was flat out not true. There was no due process violation -- it was purely questions of fact that had changed.

So while they had appeal after appeal after appeal, they kept looking at and excessively deferring to the same old record. They weren't asking the right question. And in the later appeals, where the judges sort of glanced at the new facts (but not dispositivey), every multi-judge court divided evenly (2-1, 4-3, etc). There were a significant number of judges who, despite not really being able to consider the new evidence (since there was no due process violation), still could not affirm the death sentence. They just fell barely short of a majority each time.

In the very last ad-hoc hearing ordered by the Supreme Court, they finally were ordered to take the new evidence into full consideration. But not for looking at whether Troy Davis would have ever been convicted. It was only to see if Davis could prove his innocence by clear and convincing evidence.

But that is a nonsensical standard in this case. While the state certainy shouldn't have had to reprove the entire case again from scratch, the exact opposite standard makes no sense either. In this case, most of the evidence used to convict him was either bogus or at least called into significant question. If the witnesses who recanted were removed from the original trial (with their new testimony put back in its place), there is no way Troy would have ever been convicted. In fact, any judge would have overturned a jury conviction due to lack of evidence. The reason Troy lost wasn't because he didn't successfully rebut the previous evidence -- it is that he couldnt actually prove he was innocent (despite rebutting the previous evidence). There is a reason why Reagan's former FBI chief says that Davis should not be executed.

Under such a nonsensical standard, someone could be convicted based solely on a flawed DNA test, and when the DNA test flaws were brought to light, they couldn't be released. Why? Because proving the DNA test was flawed only discounts all the original evidence. That does not independently prove he was innocent.

[TeamsterDem]

17. Using 2 forms of evidence: ballistics and eyewitness testimony

The ballistics were that a shooting previously pinned to Davis by a .38 and the casings found at the scene of the MacPhail homicide were "similar" and "could have come" from the same gun. There were reports on TV tonight saying that even the GBI (Georgia Bureau of Investigation) said this was no longer reliable.

Then 7 of 9 of the eyewitnesses later recant their stories. One of the remaining 9 is also a suspect, or at least was a suspect in the MacPhail homicide.

So one eyewitness, no ballistics, no forensics, and a jury member who says if she had known the ballistics weren't conclusive that she never would have voted the way she did. But yeah, "the state met its burden" alright.

[dkf]

19. Why wasn't the ballistics evidence reexamined?

Anyone know?

[TeamsterDem]

21. The court denied the appeal on that matter. nt

[FLAprogressive]

11. The fact that there is doubt, should be sufficient reason not to execute someone. Proving innocence

And the doubt was hardly "manufactured"....

[TeamsterDem]

13. Um, people aren't found "innocent" in trials. They're found guilty or not guilty

So the strategy for a defense attorney is EITHER to prove innocence or cast doubt upon guilt. This article is essentially saying one must prove themselves innocent, not that they should be proven guilty. In the real world proving your absolute innocence isn't very easy. And it's not really your job as a defendant. The people with a job in the case of a jury trial are the prosecutors who must PROVE your guilt.

If someone is arrested and charged with a crime, the logic suggested in this article is that until that poor bastard can absolutely demonstrate he or she was nowhere near the crime scene then we should hang 'em high. That makes very little sense. The state is responsible for proving its reasons for detaining, incarcerating, and executing prisoners. And if they can't prove it or even worse, circumstances lead to a very shady conviction, we shouldn't be saying "hell, it doesn't matter that your trial was fucked, that bullshit conviction stands until you can put God himself on the stand to testify as to your whereabouts." But that is evidently what some are in fact saying by implying that absent any evidence which was neither available at that time or for the particulars of the case, then you're fucked until and unless you can somehow work some magic to prove WHAT WE ACTUALLY DIDN'T PROVE.

Where in the hell did about half of this country learn American civics?

[Rex]

15. It is guilty until proven innocent now.

Nevermind the fact that there was no physical evidence or that several jury members say they were forced into testimony or witnesses that lied or the presumption of guilt. The state never proved he did the crime, just forced a verdict and now people are crying about 'justice' and don't realize this was all about revenge. The state never makes mistakes. Even when they murder an innocent person. The state is never wrong. They don't have to prove guilt, the decision was already made in that case. He was a dead man from assumption and speculation with no evidence.

His supporters are not the judicial system, they didn't fail both men. The system did.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Guilty until proven innocent is the American way.

Unrec

[wellst0nev0ter]

32. And Proven Guilty

With "evidence" that wouldn't stand up at a post office.

[Bjorn Against]

33. I think the judge in the case is the real murderer

No, I don't have any evidence but I will apply the same standards that were applied to Troy Davis and make him prove himself innocent.