SCOTUS Rules Troy Anthony Davis Should Get Hearing On Innocence Claim
AJC:
The high court ordered a federal judge to “receive testimony and findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis’s] innocence.”
Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a dissent, saying the federal judge assigned to hear the case will not be able to grant Davis relief. “It becomes stranger still when one realizes that the allegedly new evidence we shunt off to be examined by the district court has already been considered (and rejected) multiple times,” Scalia wrote.
But Justice John Paul Stevens cited prior court precedent that said it would be “an atrocious violation of our Constitution and the principles upon which it is based” to execute an innocent man.
Among those urging reconsideration of the Davis case: President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Bob Barr, and former FBI Director and judge William S. Sessions.
SCOTUSblog has details including the Court’s order and Justice Stevens’ separate opinion and Justice Scalia’s dissent.
4 Responses to “SCOTUS Rules Troy Anthony Davis Should Get Hearing On Innocence Claim”
As long as we are talking about “change”, let's talk about eliminating the death penalty. These constant harangues and appeals suck up more time and energy than an outdated and barbaric practice, that diminishes our standing in the world community, deserves.
[...] Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a dissent, saying the federal judge assigned to hear the case will not be able to grant Davis relief. “It becomes stranger still when one realizes that the allegedly new evidence we shunt off to be examined by the diRead more at http://themoderatevoice.com/43396/scotus-rules-troy-anthony-davis-should-get-new-hearing/ [...]
This is good news IMHO and I can no longer pretend to understand what the deal with Justice Thomas is! It's like he just acts out of spite now (perhaps he always did).
It helps if you understand what the case is about and lets face it however you think of Thomas, Scalia is no legal slouch and wrote the dissent. Basically it's if witnesses recanting is exculpatory and should be considered because through his first round of appeals his legal team did not know that some witnesses had recanted. That's it. Now, as the dissent said, many courts have seen this evidence and none as a whole thought it rose to level of proving Davis's innocence. So we have evidence which does not “prove” innocence that in and of itself wouldn't do anything but if it were exculpatory, ie the state should of told his defense team during his appeals, then he should get a new trial regardless of the quality of the evidence.