Is Georgia About to Execute an Innocent Man?

By Jeralyn, Section Death Penalty
Posted on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 11:52:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Georgia has scheduled the execution of Troy Anthony Davis for July 17. He may be innocent.

Davis' supporters believe he is innocent and the human rights organization Amnesty International believe Davis could be innocent because there was no physical evidence in the Davis case, and no murder weapon found.
Out of the nine prosecution witnesses who testified against Davis, seven have now recanted most of their testimony that was used to convict Davis for murder. Jurors stated that they were not aware that most of the witnesses were pressured and coerced by police into signing the affidavits that were used against Davis. One witness reported that he had not even read what he signed. The National Coalition to Abolish The Death Penalty is also supporting Davis.
Amnesty International released a press release on the Davis case, and Judge Rosemary Barkett of the 11th Circuit Federal Appeals Court said "If these people say, 'I was coerced by the police,' how could he [Judge Nangle] reject without a hearing?"

Much more information is available here.

< Checks On An Out Of Control Executive Branch | Scooter Libby Pays His $250k Fine >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Is Georgia About to Execute an Innocent Man? | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Gives me a horrible headache (none / 0) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 01:47:32 PM EST

If it can happen to one it can happen to anyone. Don't know how you work around this 24/7.

Why doesn't the White House.... (none / 0) (#2)
by landjjames on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 01:49:48 PM EST

step in and do something about this sentence? Oh, excuse me - I forgot. They don't care about regular folks who have a sentence that is really too severe!

I'm sorry, are we supposed to question (none / 0) (#3)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 02:12:29 PM EST

One witness reported that he had not even read what he signed.

his original signed statement because he couldn't read it, but not question his new signed statement - that he also cannot read - that states that he cannot read?!

Despite his uncertainty, the police took his statement and he was called to testify in the trial. "After the officers talked to me, they gave me a statement and told me to sign it. I signed it. I did not read it because I cannot read."

Also, I assume his testimony under oath during the trial must have pretty much backed up exactly whatever his original signed statement said, so I'm not sure what the issue with his signed statement actually is...

Anyway, somebody shot and killed a cop in a very public place. And it seems almost, if not all, of the many "witnesses" (and Davis himself) were/are involved in lives of crime, often violent crime, such that they all had something to gain - or not lose, even - by cooperating, perhaps a little too well, with the police.

Having no access to the original source material of his trial and only having access to present-day websites and such who's whole purpose is to try to stop the execution gives us a very one-sided view.

That said, the witnesses seem (now anyway) to be completely non-credible, and I support him getting a re-trial so any recanting testimonies will be made under oath.

interesting (none / 0) (#4)
by cpinva on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 05:16:07 PM EST

supposedly, there was no "physical evidence" in the case. however, just from what i've read here, and in the first linked article, i know that to be a false assertion.

there was, at minimum, two critical pieces of physical evidence at the crime scene: 1. the bullet that killed the off-duty officer., and 2. mr. davis' hands, which should have been checked for gun powder residue.

since there was no indication that either of these items was taken into account, or an explanation as to why they weren't, it seems that the local authorities did a shoddy job of investigation. perhaps, that might explain their need to "buff" up witnesses?

recantations and pe