Amy Goodman writes the syndicated column, "Troy Davis and the meaning of ‘actual innocence’," via the Northport Gazette of Alabama.
Sitting on death row in Georgia, Troy Davis has won a key victory against his own execution. On Aug. 17, the U.S. Supreme Court instructed a federal court in Georgia to consider, for the first time in a formal court proceeding, significant evidence of Davis’ innocence that surfaced after his conviction. This is the first such order from the U.S. Supreme Court in almost 50 years. Remarkably, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether it is unconstitutional to execute an innocent person.
The order read, in part, “The District Court should receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes petitioner’s innocence.” Behind the order lay a stunning array of recantations from those who originally testified as eyewitnesses to the murder of off-duty Savannah police officer Mark Allen MacPhail on Aug. 19, 1989. Seven of the nine non-police witnesses who originally identified Davis as the murderer of MacPhail have since recanted, some alleging police coercion and intimidation in obtaining their testimony. Of the remaining two witnesses, one, Sylvester “Redd” Coles, is accused by others as the shooter and likely identified Davis as the perpetrator in order to save himself from arrest.
And:
Despite the seven recantations, Georgia’s parole commission has refused to commute Davis’ sentence. Courts have refused to hear the evidence, mostly on procedural grounds. Conservatives like former Georgia Congressman and prosecutor Bob Barr and former FBI Director William Sessions have called for justice in his case, along with Pope Benedict XVI, President Jimmy Carter, the NAACP and Amnesty International.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, “The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.” Yet conservative Justice Antonin Scalia dissented (with Justice Clarence Thomas), writing that Davis’ case “is a sure loser,” and “[t]his Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
After surviving three execution dates, one within two hours of lethal injection, Troy Davis will finally have his day in court. With the courageous support of his sister, Martina Correia (who has been fighting for his life as well as her own -- she has stage 4 breast cancer) and his nephew, Antone De’Jaun Correia, who at 15 is a budding human-rights activist, Davis may yet defy death. That could lead to a long-overdue precedent in U.S. law: It is unconstitutional to execute an innocent person.
Goodman is the host of Democracy Now! Earlier coverage of the Davis order starts here.
Comments