Last year, I wrote about Troy Anthony Davis, who is on death row in Atlanta. A temporary stay of execution was granted while Georgia Supreme Court considered his motion for a new trial based on evidence of his innocence, namely, the fact that 3 out of 4 eye witnesses have recanted their testimony, that evidence exists that another person was the shooter, and that Troy Davis was set up.
In all of his appeals, he has never been granted the right to present this evidence in court, based on technicalities.
Yesterday, the court that considered his latest appeal also chose to deny his appeal to present the evidence in a court hearing, on the basis that original evidence is always more compelling.
It also continues what previous appeal courts have done -- rule based on technicalities. Evidence presented too late (due to the failure of his court-appointed defense and lack of funds to hire private attorneys), some affidavits not containing a notary stamp, a failure of the appeal to include whether Troy Davis was left- or right- handed.
The court denied his motion to present his evidence 4-3.
I don't know if Troy Davis was the murderer or not, but I think it is really sad that, appeal after appeal, he continues to be denied even the ability to present evidence and hear testimony of those who recant their earlier testimony.
There is a myth in America that murderers get too many appeals, and many, many chances to prove their innocence. But that is just a myth. In appeal after appeal, many courts simply refuse to even hear the testimony on technical grounds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There is no doubt a complicated set of facts to this protracted case, but one thing for certain is that the power of an appeals court is clearly limited.
Generally, new evidence can not be presented on appeal. Broadly speaking, that is because it is not believed that an appeal should approximate a full-blown trial. An appeals court can, if they find ample cause, order a new trial. That in itself can be problematic when much time has passed, memory has faded or witnesses are deceased or otherwise unavailable.
The process, and the multi-tiered authorities, precedents and rules are somewhat analogous to your comments of March 6, 2008, regarding the Dem. presidential primaries in Florida and Michigan. The rules are the rules, and if they are deemed arbitrary, outdated or useless, the rules can and should be changed through whatever procedure is established to do so.
This is not to say that courts do not ever reach wrong decisions or issue bad opinions, but if one is looking only at a desired outcome on an appeal, the route to that outcome must conform to certain rules and procedures.
If there is indeed a "real killer" out there, if they were to be charged and convicted, that would provide the outcome of freeing the falsely accused and convicted.
As aggravating as the facts might seem to be in an individual case, it probably does not serve us or the rule of law to decide to give appeals courts broad powers to reach over trial courts and resolve perceived inequities. Law involves fine balancing acts, and to do this would likely result in as many, or far more such troubling cases.
Lawwhomper
Post a Comment