The Democrat Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

That sort of assumes an infallible justice system, though. How many people have been exonerated from death row thanks to DNA testing after decades of protesting their innocence and having people discover flaws and fabrications in the prosecutors' cases? Why is their testimony from 20 years ago enough to convict, even with all of the problems with eyewitness testimony and accusations of police coercion, but now their recantations are "suspect"?

 

I think adding new evidence that didn't exist is one thing. Asking reviewing courts to re-weigh evidence is another. That's not their role, nor should it be. It would make the entire system meaningless. Every case would immediately be appealed so that a different set of eyes would render a verdict. And then when the party that lost doesn't like the appellate courts' ruling, they'd appeal it to the SC and then on through the federal system.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Well, again, the various judges, administrators and gov't officials at all levels disagreed. I dunno why people in this country jump onto these media headlines as if they're the truth. See: Anthony, Casey. The public is given a shred of the entire story. Yeah, it sounds terrible that 7 of the 9 people suddenly recanted their testimony (from 20 something years ago), but I have to believe their reasoning for doing that was incredibly suspect and there was enough evidence established at his trial to still maintain the guilty verdict.

 

 

I think adding new evidence that didn't exist is one thing. Asking reviewing courts to re-weigh evidence is another. That's not their role, nor should it be. It would make the entire system meaningless. Every case would immediately be appealed so that a different set of eyes would render a verdict. And then when the party that lost doesn't like the appellate courts' ruling, they'd appeal it to the SC and then on through the federal system.

The real problem here is that I'd think by any reasonable standard..."7 witnesses recanting their story and alleging police coercion" ought to be considered new evidence. And by your standard...if their reason for recanting their story is incredibly suspect, then their testimony should have been incredibly suspect in the first place.

[StrangeSox]

I think adding new evidence that didn't exist is one thing. Asking reviewing courts to re-weigh evidence is another. That's not their role, nor should it be. It would make the entire system meaningless. Every case would immediately be appealed so that a different set of eyes would render a verdict. And then when the party that lost doesn't like the appellate courts' ruling, they'd appeal it to the SC and then on through the federal system.

Asking courts to re-weigh a capital case that was heavily (entirely?) dependent on witness testimony where the witnesses have almost all recanted and claimed coercion doesn't seem like an especially heavy burden to place on the system avoid executing the wrong person.

[StrangeSox]

An older article explaining Scalia's view that you don't have a right to a new trial even with new evidence. Once you're convicted, case-closed motherf***er.

 

In retrospect, the case against Davis, which wasn’t strong to begin with, has almost completely fallen apart. But Davis has a big problem: As an exasperated Scalia explained in his dissent from Monday’s extraordinarily unusual Supreme Court order directing a federal court to hold an evidentiary hearing on Davis’ claims, there’s nothing illegal about what has happened, and continues to happen, to Troy Davis. (The order is unusual because the court almost never entertains direct appeals by defendants in Davis’ situation.)

 

Judges of this type like these sorts of cases because they demonstrate that law is a supposedly nonpolitical and intellectually rigorous practice, rather than a touchy-feely exercise in doing what strikes the judge as the right thing.

 

“This court,” Scalia pointed out, “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 court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

[StrangeSox]

btw here's the ruling from a year ago:

 

http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pd...uling082410.pdf

 

This is the reasoning used to dismiss at least one of the recantations:

 

Moreover, much of Ms. Ferrell's affidavit

testimony was directly contradicted by credible, live testimony

at the hearing. Officer Ramsey testified that he never coerced

her testimony in any way or suggested what the contents of her

testimony should be, and that Ms. Ferrell actually approached a

different officer without solicitation and identified Mr. Davis

as the shooter. (Evidentiary Hearing Transcript at 342-44.)

And, Mr. Lock credibly testified that he never attempted to

coerce a witness to stick to a prior statement. (Evidentiary

Hearing Transcript at 44

 

Well hey, the cops said they didn't tell her to lie in court, she must be making this up!

[Jenksismyhero]

btw here's the ruling from a year ago:

 

http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pd...uling082410.pdf

 

Just skimming through this, the guy had about 10 different appeals/petitions. While not all of them weighed evidence as to his innocence, the parole/conviction board of Georgia actually did. He basically got a second trial to establish that his first trial was wrong...documents were submitted, testimony from his "new" affiants were provided, and Davis himself was allowed to speak. They ultimately rejected his petition finding no reversible error or evidence of his innocence.

 

As to this petition, it's not like the Court just read some briefs. They clearly analyzed their new affidavits and compared it to their prior testimony and of the evidence of the trial itself. The first guy's recantation wasn't that he changed his mind, only that he now could not remember exactly what he saw. (pg 129-130) And he couldn't support at all his claim of being coerced to testify (in fact he expressly said he wasn't). The second guys recantation and new testimony completely contradicted other witness testimony about the night of the shooting, so while his recanted testimony was admitted as credible, it essentially threw in doubt all of his testimony (both old and new). The third guys was determined to be a complete lie and totally unbelievable (134-135).

 

Instead of wasting the next 20 minutes finishing this, it seems to me all of this "new" evidence was incredibly suspect (as I had rightly presumed) or that the recantations didn't really change any of the the "damning" portions of their prior testimony establishing the guys guilt. Couple that with the fact that this guy got more of his fair share of chances to prove his innocence (and couldn't), I just don't see the uproar. In fact, this again just proves that cable news headlines just make the country dumber. Sounds like a s***ty system when the headline is "7 of 9 witnesses recant testimony of guilt, man still put to death." People read that an assume he's now innocent. Total bulls***.

 

And BTW it was 7 out of 36 state and 5 defense witnesses that recanted their testimony. The rest did not. And it doesn't look like any of them were eye witnesses, just other people with alleged knowledge of the case (including a jailhouse snitch).

 

Did you read this before claiming that George "murdered" him?

Edited September 22, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Asking courts to re-weigh a capital case that was heavily (entirely?) dependent on witness testimony where the witnesses have almost all recanted and claimed coercion doesn't seem like an especially heavy burden to place on the system avoid executing the wrong person.

 

This is totally false.

 

Edit: as to the "all witnesses" part. Sure they CLAIMED coercion. And from the few that I read either the Court found that the witnesses flat out admitted that he wasn't coerced (the first guy) or that there was no credible evidence establishing any coercion.

 

Also interesting too that some of the recanters were friends of Davis. Any real shock that they'd lie/recant to get him off death row/out of jail?

 

second edit: I take that back. looking through the rest the guy that was being assaulted in the parking lot was one that recanted his testimony. But certainly not "almost all" of the witnesses recanted their testimony.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

This is the reasoning used to dismiss at least one of the recantations:

 

 

 

Well hey, the cops said they didn't tell her to lie in court, she must be making this up!

 

Yeah, the part about his "new" testimony (not directly to his innocence or guilt) not jiving with other testimony established at trial is the more important part. The fact that the other officers completely denied it (as opposed to not saying anything about it) is just the cherry on the top.

[StrangeSox]

This is totally false.

 

what is totally false?

 

Edit: as to the "all witnesses" part. Sure they CLAIMED coercion. And from the few that I read either the Court found that the witnesses flat out admitted that he wasn't coerced (the first guy) or that there was no credible evidence establishing any coercion.

 

Also interesting too that some of the recanters were friends of Davis. Any real shock that they'd lie/recant to get him off death row/out of jail?

 

So, they were friends of Davis and told the truth at the time and got him convicted, but now recant their story?

 

The problem with this line is that if they're unreliable witnesses, they're unreliable witnesses. And police coercion is incredibly difficult to prove; how long did it take for the CPD people who literally tortured suspects to face any charges?

 

second edit: I take that back. looking through the rest the guy that was being assaulted in the parking lot was one that recanted his testimony. But certainly not "almost all" of the witnesses recanted their testimony.

 

There were 9 witnesses who attested to Davis' involvement and whereabouts that night. Obviously that number doesn't include ballistics experts, any psychological or character witnesses, etc.

[StrangeSox]

Just skimming through this, the guy had about 10 different appeals/petitions. While not all of them weighed evidence as to his innocence, the parole/conviction board of Georgia actually did. He basically got a second trial to establish that his first trial was wrong...documents were submitted, testimony from his "new" affiants were provided, and Davis himself was allowed to speak. They ultimately rejected his petition finding no reversible error or evidence of his innocence.

 

As to this petition, it's not like the Court just read some briefs. They clearly analyzed their new affidavits and compared it to their prior testimony and of the evidence of the trial itself. The first guy's recantation wasn't that he changed his mind, only that he now could not remember exactly what he saw. (pg 129-130) And he couldn't support at all his claim of being coerced to testify (in fact he expressly said he wasn't). The second guys recantation and new testimony completely contradicted other witness testimony about the night of the shooting, so while his recanted testimony was admitted as credible, it essentially threw in doubt all of his testimony (both old and new). The third guys was determined to be a complete lie and totally unbelievable (134-135).

 

Instead of wasting the next 20 minutes finishing this, it seems to me all of this "new" evidence was incredibly suspect (as I had rightly presumed) or that the recantations didn't really change any of the the "damning" portions of their prior testimony establishing the guys guilt. Couple that with the fact that this guy got more of his fair share of chances to prove his innocence (and couldn't), I just don't see the uproar. In fact, this again just proves that cable news headlines just make the country dumber. Sounds like a s***ty system when the headline is "7 of 9 witnesses recant testimony of guilt, man still put to death." People read that an assume he's now innocent. Total bulls***.

 

And BTW it was 7 out of 36 state and 5 defense witnesses that recanted their testimony. The rest did not. And it doesn't look like any of them were eye witnesses, just other people with alleged knowledge of the case (including a jailhouse snitch).

 

Did you read this before claiming that George "murdered" him?

 

notice that the burden of proof is shifted from the state to Davis, though. If the state convicted on a weak case that later falls apart, Davis has to prove his innocence, the state doesn't have to justify their case. eye-witness testimony is pretty much s*** regardless of whether the person giving it honestly believes it, and it's especially useless when it is later recanted or contradicted.

[Texsox]

I don't see the problem, if somehow some new evidence would prove his innocence without a doubt, we can always dig him up and bring him back to life.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Not according to Scalia, there's no guarantee to a new trial if new evidence is found that confirms your innocence.

[Jenksismyhero]

what is totally false?

 

 

 

So, they were friends of Davis and told the truth at the time and got him convicted, but now recant their story?

 

The problem with this line is that if they're unreliable witnesses, they're unreliable witnesses. And police coercion is incredibly difficult to prove; how long did it take for the CPD people who literally tortured suspects to face any charges?

 

 

 

There were 9 witnesses who attested to Davis' involvement and whereabouts that night. Obviously that number doesn't include ballistics experts, any psychological or character witnesses, etc.

 

I ask again, did you read that opinion? Go start at like pg 135 and check to see how each individual "new" affidavit was reviewed. Most either (1) didn't actually recant anything of importance (i.e., showing his innocence), (2) didn't establish that any type of coercion actually happened (and in at least one case, flat out denied that it did), or (3) were not credible based on the fact that some of the "new" testimony was contradicted by various pieces of evidence introduced at trial.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

notice that the burden of proof is shifted from the state to Davis, though. If the state convicted on a weak case that later falls apart, Davis has to prove his innocence, the state doesn't have to justify their case. eye-witness testimony is pretty much s*** regardless of whether the person giving it honestly believes it, and it's especially useless when it is later recanted or contradicted.

 

And that's the way it should be. The state proved it's case. He's guilty. Unless you want to make that (And every other verdict) completely meaningless, of course there has to be some burden shifting involved.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't see the problem, if somehow some new evidence would prove his innocence without a doubt, we can always dig him up and bring him back to life.

 

You act as though this guy wasn't given a fair shot to prove his innocence. He offered nothing over the last 10 years to show that. A jury found him guilty on some pretty strong evidence tying him to the scene in the same clothes, eye witness testimony of him being the shooter, and ballistic evidence to support it. This wasn't some bulls***, trumped up case.

 

Essentially what you guys are suggesting is that our criminal justice system should allow someone to delay their punishment indefinitely because who knows what he might be able to create to establish his innocence. So, credibility or reasonability of the "evidence" aside, he offered a new theory so it must be accepted as true.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[illinilaw08]

notice that the burden of proof is shifted from the state to Davis, though. If the state convicted on a weak case that later falls apart, Davis has to prove his innocence, the state doesn't have to justify their case. eye-witness testimony is pretty much s*** regardless of whether the person giving it honestly believes it, and it's especially useless when it is later recanted or contradicted.

 

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of our justice system. As a former prosecutor, I can say that:

 

(1) In the vast majority of cases, all you have is eye witness testimony. A generation of CSIs and Law and Orders make people believe that, without DNA evidence, a case is bad. That is patently not true.

 

(2) Can eye witness testimony be unreliable? Hell yes! But it is the job of the defense attorney to point out how unreliable the testimony is at the actual trial - the one you are guaranteed in front of a jury of your peers. But you also should recognize that eye witness testimony becomes less reliable the further removed you are from the actual event. Thus, putting the burden on the State to prove its case again, rather than the burden on Troy Davis to show new evidence that supports his innocence, puts an undue burden on the State.

 

(3) I believe that Troy Davis' execution should have been stayed and he should be spending life in prison right now. But that's mostly because I think some people have a far too cavalier attitude toward the death penalty.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of our justice system. As a former prosecutor, I can say that:

 

(1) In the vast majority of cases, all you have is eye witness testimony. A generation of CSIs and Law and Orders make people believe that, without DNA evidence, a case is bad. That is patently not true.

 

(2) Can eye witness testimony be unreliable? Hell yes! But it is the job of the defense attorney to point out how unreliable the testimony is at the actual trial - the one you are guaranteed in front of a jury of your peers. But you also should recognize that eye witness testimony becomes less reliable the further removed you are from the actual event. Thus, putting the burden on the State to prove its case again, rather than the burden on Troy Davis to show new evidence that supports his innocence, puts an undue burden on the State.

 

(3) I believe that Troy Davis' execution should have been stayed and he should be spending life in prison right now. But that's mostly because I think some people have a far too cavalier attitude toward the death penalty.

*like*

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I will dig up the several studies I've read on eye-witness testimony that indicates it is pretty much worthless.

[NorthSideSox72]

I will dig up the several studies I've read on eye-witness testimony that indicates it is pretty much worthless.

It isn't worthless, it ranges from worthless to critical, depending on the circumstances. I am sure that it is overused and abused at times, and I am equally sure that dismissing it entirely doesn't make sense.

 

[StrangeSox]

It isn't worthless, it ranges from worthless to critical, depending on the circumstances. I am sure that it is overused and abused at times, and I am equally sure that dismissing it entirely doesn't make sense.

 

That doesn't mean all eyewitness testimony is wrong, but that its so unreliable that it doesn't exactly present much evidence. Something like 70% of the convictions that the Innocence Project has helped to overturn were based on faulty eyewitness identification.

[NorthSideSox72]

That doesn't mean all eyewitness testimony is wrong, but that its so unreliable that it doesn't exactly present much evidence. Something like 70% of the convictions that the Innocence Project has helped to overturn were based on faulty eyewitness identification.

 

You know better than to interperet the bolded in this way. The Innocence Project finds cases of specific doubt, a few out of millions, and zeroes in on those. So what that stat says is, at best, that of the cases where there IS something wrong, it is often with eyewitness testimony. It in no way at all says eyewitness testimony is unreliable, or 30% reliable, or anything of the sort.

 

[StrangeSox]

Eh as usual I overstated my case a bit, here's one of the papers investigating the unreliability and steps that can be taken to avoid it. One of the biggest problems found in several papers IIRC is identifying someone based on a lineup.

 

http://connecticutlawreview.org/documents/Wiseet.al.pdf

[southsider2k5]

That doesn't mean all eyewitness testimony is wrong, but that its so unreliable that it doesn't exactly present much evidence. Something like 70% of the convictions that the Innocence Project has helped to overturn were based on faulty eyewitness identification.

 

That number is very misleading. How many total convictions are talking about where eyewitness testimony was the overwhelming factor in conviction?

[StrangeSox]

You know better than to interperet the bolded in this way. The Innocence Project finds cases of specific doubt, a few out of millions, and zeroes in on those. So what that stat says is, at best, that of the cases where there IS something wrong, it is often with eyewitness testimony. It in no way at all says eyewitness testimony is unreliable, or 30% reliable, or anything of the sort.

 

I didn't say 30% was reliable, that'd be a horrible use of statistics! But a significant number of wrongful convictions are due to witness testimony, which certainly indicates a problem.

[illinilaw08]

I will dig up the several studies I've read on eye-witness testimony that indicates it is pretty much worthless.

 

That's fine; you can believe eye witness testimony is unreliable (and you're right... it can absolutely be unreliable - I remember reading a federal prosecutor's book and him saying something along the lines of "in 90% of cases, the police officer is lying and the defendant is guilty"). But that wasn't my point. In the vast majority of criminal cases, there just isn't physical evidence. In most cases, it is cost prohibitive (if every criminal case had to have some sort of DNA evidence to get a conviction, the system would literally fall apart). Ergo, eye witness testimony is, literally, the best evidence.

 

My question for you is if eye-witness testimony is "worthless" and hard, physical evidence just doesn't exist most of the time, how is the State supposed to try a case? Do we just assume everyone is innocent? I'm sorry victim of a crime... eye witness testimony is unreliable and I have STUDIES that back this up so unless you managed to swab some DNA off your attacker, there's nothing we can do for you.

 

Again, the burden is on the State to prove its case, and a good defense attorney will poke holes in unreliable testimony on cross examination.