Troy Davis was sentenced to death for murdering an off-duty police officer back in 1989. According to Barr, he was convicted only on the testimony of supposed eye-witnesses.
With no murder weapon, surveillance videotape or DNA evidence left behind, the jury that judged Mr. Davis had to weigh the conflicting testimony of several eyewitnesses to sift out the gunman from the onlookers who had nothing to do with the heinous crime.Now, seven out of nine of the witnesses have changed their story. But a law that Barr helped write has blocked Davis from bringing the new evidence of his innocence to light. In my opinion, the death penalty was inappropriate in this case from the beginning. Imposition of the death penalty should only be done in cases where guilt is clear: a positive DNA match, a criminal literally caught in the act, an un-coerced confession, a criminal openly bragging about the crime, etc. In these types of situations I am all for swift executions and limited appeals.
But testimony of witnesses who don't even all agree is simply not reliable enough to send someone to his death. How many times do witnesses change their stories? Davis should never have been sentenced to death. Hopefully the Supreme Court will intervene and prevent a possibly innocent man from being executed.
UPDATE
Check the comments for the other side and more detail about the case.
If you read all the material, you know that Davis’ defense counsel , during the trial, questioned all of the eyewitnesses, very strongly, on the issue of whether they were coerced or intimidated.
ReplyDeleteAll of the eyewitnesses said that there was no coercion or intimidation, of any kind.
At trial, their identifications were solid, without a hint of coercion or intimidation.
Now, years later, folks are alleging police intimidation.
Although, all prior testimony and indications was that there was no intimidation, let’s imagine, now, that there was police intimidation of eyewitnesses.
Ask: "For what possible reason would the police intimidate eyewitnesses to identify one suspect over the other?" There is no reason, at all.
Secondly, that intimidation does not carry over to the trial.
The eyewitnesses were interviewed, extensively, by the prosecutors prior to the trial and there was no mention of intimidation or coercion, there, either, just as there was a denial of intimidation or coercion by those same witnesses at trial.
One of the things the appellate judges are looking at is that Davis’ attorneys waited, for 5 years, to bring up these “recantations”.
First, that strongly indicates that Davis’ attorneys didn’t give them much credibility, themselves. That is the only reason for the delay.
Secondly, and obviously, we all have to consider that the intimidation and coercion of witnesses can, also, occur long after a trial and that saving the life of a person on death row, either guilty or innocent, provides motivation to do so.
So, here, there is motivation for the intimidation and coercion of eyewitnesses.
Most, if not all, of the appellate judges in this case, have been around a long time and certainly, they have seen both credible and non credible recantations and forgetfullness by witnesses from trials, that were many years in the past, as in the Davis case.
I think we all know that to be true.
Regarding the physical evidence. Davis was identified as the one with the gun and the two shootings and the bullets were tied to the same gun, and the two shootings were tied to Davis.The gun wasn’t recovered.
Davis was postively identified and convicted in his first shooting of that night, which he intended to be a murder, fortunatley that vicitm, shot in the head, as well, survivied.
Thanks for posting all that information.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously know a lot more about this case than I do, since I was going just by what I read in the Barr article.