The execution of Troy Davis

[whackadoodle]

Though Davis' attorneys said seven of nine key witnesses against him disputed all or parts of their testimony

What has gotten lost in the story of this case is the key phrase "key witnesses". The state Southern District Court of GA PDF attests that the prosecution called 34 witness (pg. 41).
Also lost in the righteous indignation is the small matter of the physical evidence. See, the gun used to kill McPhail had been used one hour earlier that evening, to shoot Michael Cooper in his car near Cloversdale Savannah Morning News PDF. Although the weapon was not found, the shell casings in both locations were matched. Guess who was also in both locations?
As to the charge of this being a modern day lynching, how do you explain the seven African-American jury members of the original trial? Toms, one-and-all?

I am not saying that there are not some clear problems with having applied the death penalty in this case, just that people need to dig a little deeper into the facts before they ride their hobby-horse off into the sunset.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Though Davis' attorneys said seven of nine key witnesses against him disputed all or parts of their testimony

What has gotten lost in the story of this case is the key phrase "key witnesses". The state Southern District Court of GA PDF attests that the prosecution called 34 witness (pg. 41).
Also lost in the righteous indignation is the small matter of the physical evidence. See, the gun used to kill McPhail had been used one hour earlier that evening, to shoot Michael Cooper in his car near Cloversdale Savannah Morning News PDF. Although the weapon was not found, the shell casings in both locations were matched. Guess who was also in both locations?
As to the charge of this being a modern day lynching, how do you explain the seven African-American jury members of the original trial? Toms, one-and-all?

I am not saying that there are not some clear problems with having applied the death penalty in this case, just that people need to dig a little deeper into the facts before they ride their hobby-horse off into the sunset.

The average American citizen will support the death penalty for lots of crimes where it is not warranted. It was racist to bring the death penalty over a random shooting during a fight in a Burger King parking lot in the first place. I don't really doubt that Troy Davis did it; the thing is, it's second degree murder. Example -- just a while ago a guy in a Sacramento jail cell strangled his cellmate to death. His sentence? 2nd degree murder. That's the sort of crime this was; random off the cuff violence from which rehabilitation is eminently feasable. It was not premeditated and it was not worthy of the death penalty; the fact it can be legally applied in Georgia for this kind of crime is bad to start with. Worse is the simple, brutal reality that they then only apply it to the black men.

[whackadoodle]

You think the fact the MacPhail was an officer had nothing to do with the sentencing?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You think the fact the MacPhail was an officer had nothing to do with the sentencing?

If it did, that's worse, because this nation was founded on equality, and for law enforcement officers to get the extra special privilege of having people who killed them be executed would be a shocking affront to the principles of the constitution. They are just people, doing a job. Full stop.

[Flagg]

You think the fact the MacPhail was an officer had nothing to do with the sentencing?

If it did, that's worse, because this nation was founded on equality, and for law enforcement officers to get the extra special privilege of having people who killed them be executed would be a shocking affront to the principles of the constitution. They are just people, doing a job. Full stop.

According to Rick Perry killing a cop or child makes you eligible for the death penalty while other murders require some kind of "aggravating factor".

[Flagg]

Though Davis' attorneys said seven of nine key witnesses against him disputed all or parts of their testimony

What has gotten lost in the story of this case is the key phrase "key witnesses". The state Southern District Court of GA PDF attests that the prosecution called 34 witness (pg. 41).
Also lost in the righteous indignation is the small matter of the physical evidence. See, the gun used to kill McPhail had been used one hour earlier that evening, to shoot Michael Cooper in his car near Cloversdale Savannah Morning News PDF. Although the weapon was not found, the shell casings in both locations were matched. Guess who was also in both locations?
As to the charge of this being a modern day lynching, how do you explain the seven African-American jury members of the original trial? Toms, one-and-all?

I am not saying that there are not some clear problems with having applied the death penalty in this case, just that people need to dig a little deeper into the facts before they ride their hobby-horse off into the sunset.

The ballistic evidence was shown to have been faulty to the point where there was no actual match, so literally all they had was eye witness testimony, something that is proven unreliable.

[MarshalPurnell]

Killing a police officer in the course of his duties might logically qualify as an aggravating factor because the officer is a representative of the state. An attack on a uniformed officer pursuing his duties is therefore an attack on the authority of the state, and of course there are obvious reasons to strongly discourage violent resistance to arrest. On the other hand that has to be balanced against other factors, including knowledge of the status of the victim; killing an off-duty cop that one had no reason to suspect was a cop would not be an attack on the state's authority, nor would killing a cop in circumstances where identification is a problem such as a no-knock raid. It would also stand to reason that killing other representatives of the state's authority, such as judges, prosecutors, emergency responders, and so on, should also be considered as an aggravating factor.

[whackadoodle]

The ballistic evidence was shown to have been faulty to the point where there was no actual match, so literally all they had was eye witness testimony, something that is proven unreliable.

Sources, please? All I can find are unsupported claims by Davis' defense.

[Justforfun000]

Killing a police officer in the course of his duties might logically qualify as an aggravating factor because the officer is a representative of the state. An attack on a uniformed officer pursuing his duties is therefore an attack on the authority of the state, and of course there are obvious reasons to strongly discourage violent resistance to arrest. On the other hand that has to be balanced against other factors, including knowledge of the status of the victim; killing an off-duty cop that one had no reason to suspect was a cop would not be an attack on the state's authority, nor would killing a cop in circumstances where identification is a problem such as a no-knock raid. It would also stand to reason that killing other representatives of the state's authority, such as judges, prosecutors, emergency responders, and so on, should also be considered as an aggravating factor.

This is very well put..I agree. While I can understand the law putting a special punishment on attacks against respresentatives of the state authority, it would be irrelevant in this case. I have never heard of this guy personally but the little I've gathered in this thread really shocks me. I can't believe they would be so loosey goosy with the death penalty. This is FAR from an iron-clad case. As stated above, very few murderers get the death penalty. There has got to be some additional reason this particular one was so extreme. Based on a brief scan of the story, it shrieks racism to me. I could very well be wrong...but something stinks.

[Flagg]

The ballistic evidence was shown to have been faulty to the point where there was no actual match, so literally all they had was eye witness testimony, something that is proven unreliable.

Sources, please? All I can find are unsupported claims by Davis' defense.

Link

New questions cast doubt on Troy Davis conviction

By CARLOS CAMPOS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 08/05/07

There wasn't much for crime scene analysts to pore over after Savannah police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail was fatally shot in a Burger King parking lot on Aug. 19, 1989.

There were no fingerprints, murder weapons, tire tracks, bloody footprints or other basic clues that help detectives track down killers. Only the bullets extracted from MacPhail and empty shell casings found on the ground provided the tiniest bit of physical evidence.

Troy Anthony Davis was eventually sentenced to death for the murder, mostly on the testimony of eyewitnesses who identified him as the shooter.

Most of those witnesses have since recanted. And now his defense team, seeking to save him from execution, is challenging the conclusions drawn from the ballistics analysis done in the Davis case. They've hired one of the state's leading firearms experts, who concluded the analysis done soon after the killing was deeply flawed.

The questions they've raised have bought Davis time. Last month, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles temporarily halted his execution, just 24 hours before it was to be carried out. And on Friday, the Georgia Supreme Court granted Davis a rare opportunity to make his case for a new trial.

The state parole board is scheduled to take up Davis' case again Thursday. Parole board members want to hear directly from the witnesses who now say they made up testimony that implicated Davis. And they have asked for new tests on the bullets found at the scene.

Police collected at least 20 bullets and shell casings from two areas the night of MacPhail's murder: the Burger King parking lot where he was killed and a nearby bank, and the site of a pool party where two men were injured in separate drive-by shootings just a short time apart that same night.

Prosecutors believed Davis was responsible for at least one of the shootings at the party and for MacPhail's murder at a Burger King across from the Yamacraw public housing project. A GBI crime analyst linked bullets from all three shootings, concluding they could have come from the same gun, either a .38 Special or .357 Magnum revolver.

During the trial, prosecutor Spencer Lawton told the jury that Davis was carrying a .38 that night and that bullets he fired at the party could be matched with those fired into the body of Officer McPhail.

But Jason Ewart, one of Davis' lawyers, said the evidence doesn't support that conclusion.

"The ballistics do not connect Troy to any crime," he said. Ewart was not Davis' attorney during the trial.

Lawton, the Chatham County district attorney, has not commented publicly on the case. But in court filings, his office dismissed Davis' recent claims as a baseless, last-minute delay tactic.

Roger Parian, director of the GBI crime lab in Savannah at the time, indicated in a report that bullets and empty shell casings found at the different crime scenes were similar, meaning the gun used to kill Officer MacPhail could have been the same one used to shoot Michael Cooper and Sherman Coleman, the two men injured at the pool party earlier.

Davis was in both places that night, although witnesses have said others were at both crime scenes.

Analysis 'wrong at worst'

In a report written for Davis' defense team in 2003 and submitted to the state parole board, retired GBI ballistics expert Kelly Fite concluded that Parian's analysis was "shoddy and questionable at best and patently wrong at worst." Fite concluded his analysis by stating, "As it appears now, the [ballistics] testing already conducted in this case is wholly lacking in reliability."

Fite also notes in his affidavit that Coleman was shot shortly after Cooper at approximately the same time as MacPhail. Fite writes that Parian and the prosecution "conveniently discarded" the timing of events that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the same weapon to have been used in both crimes.

"At best, the ballistics states that the same people who were at the Cloverdale party were also at Yamacraw . . . area of town later that evening," attorney Ewart said. "Yamacraw was the Wild West back then — everyone had a gun."

Prosecutors are dismissive.

"[Davis] waited to present this affidavit, based on faulty assumptions, until the eve of his execution solely to thwart justice," Lawton's office wrote in a July 13 court filing seeking to allow Davis' execution to proceed.

Lawton's office also states in the filing that Fite misinterpreted the ballistics report, claiming that Parian linked only the MacPhail and Cooper shootings, not Coleman's.

Fite worked as a firearms examiner for the GBI for 31 years and has provided expert testimony about 2,700 times in state and federal courts throughout the Southeast, according to his résumé. He was Parian's teacher at the GBI. Parian retired in 1999 after 28 years with the state.

"He's been going around the state testifying adamantly against GBI examiners," said Parian, who was reached at his home in Savannah. "Even the ones he trained."

Parian said his only concern at the time was examining the ballistics in the Davis case, and he did not take any timelines into account.

"I knew there was some question about his guilt," Parian said. "That's not for me to decide. I tried to render a ballistics opinion."

Work questioned before

This is not the first time Parian's work has come under question, however.

His testimony in another death-penalty case led, in part, to the reversal of a murder conviction. Gary Nelson was sentenced to die for the 1978 rape and murder of a 6-year-old girl.

Parian testified at the trial that a limb hair found on the girl had similar characteristics to an arm hair taken from Nelson. He went on to say that the hair was a potential match with only 120 African-Americans in Chatham County.

But Parian and prosecutors failed to mention that FBI analysis of the hair concluded the sample was "not suitable for significant comparison purposes." In other words, there was no way to link the hair to Nelson using credible scientific methods.

The withholding of the FBI report and Nelson's inability to counter Parian's testimony was cited in the Georgia Supreme Court's 1991 decision reversing his conviction.

Nelson was eventually freed from prison.

Parian said recently he couldn't recollect the

details of the Nelson case. But he said he did not positively identify Nelson as the killer. "If anybody based a decision on that [testimony], that was not my intention," he said.

Emmet Bondurant, a veteran Atlanta lawyer who handled Nelson's appeal, was alarmed when he learned from Davis' lawyers that Parian was involved in analyzing evidence in Davis' case.

He believes Davis' lawyers are right to question Parian's work.

"It would certainly make me far more guarded and skeptical of his testimony," Bondurant said.

[Thanas]

(This post will test whether the revulsion in this thread is at a perceived miscarriage of justice or at the US institution of the death penalty.)

So....what was your aim here?

[MarshalPurnell]

Killing a police officer in the course of his duties might logically qualify as an aggravating factor because the officer is a representative of the state. An attack on a uniformed officer pursuing his duties is therefore an attack on the authority of the state, and of course there are obvious reasons to strongly discourage violent resistance to arrest. On the other hand that has to be balanced against other factors, including knowledge of the status of the victim; killing an off-duty cop that one had no reason to suspect was a cop would not be an attack on the state's authority, nor would killing a cop in circumstances where identification is a problem such as a no-knock raid. It would also stand to reason that killing other representatives of the state's authority, such as judges, prosecutors, emergency responders, and so on, should also be considered as an aggravating factor.

This is very well put..I agree. While I can understand the law putting a special punishment on attacks against respresentatives of the state authority, it would be irrelevant in this case. I have never heard of this guy personally but the little I've gathered in this thread really shocks me. I can't believe they would be so loosey goosy with the death penalty. This is FAR from an iron-clad case. As stated above, very few murderers get the death penalty. There has got to be some additional reason this particular one was so extreme. Based on a brief scan of the story, it shrieks racism to me. I could very well be wrong...but something stinks.

Oh, the police take professional solidarity very seriously, and will mobilize all of their assets to "avenge their own." It's partly an extrajudicial means of deterrence and partly also a way of reinforcing the solidarity and thus cohesion of the force. Unfortunately police are no less human than anyone else, so that tendency can certainly fall prey to bad practices or even outright corruption. The "blue wall of silence" is another manifestation of what happens when police solidarity starts trumping public interest. Regrettably the endorsement of the police unions is very important in American politics, which leaves politicians very responsive to demands from the force and very reluctant to provide serious criticism or oversight. Prosecutors likewise rely on a public persona of being "tough on crime" to secure re-election which means they too will be reluctant to look into police misconduct and may abet the same if it buttresses their own interests.

Not, of course, to stress this too far. Most police departments are not corrupt instruments of racist oppression filled with double-dealing cops just aching to finger an innocent man. But the solidarity effect allows the bad apples to readily poison entire cases and the lack of independent oversight means that there are few institutional checks on that kind of behavior. Making the Internal Affairs division of police departments an independent agency might help a bit, by further distancing them from the blue wall effect and giving them more incentive to do effective oversight, but it would probably also exacerbate the tendency of police to see any questioning of their methods or of individual officers as an attack against them generally. Public outrage backed by video is probably the most effective way to hold police responsible, as seen in the case in Orange County where two officers are being charged after beating a homeless man to death. On the other hand the victim was white, his father was an ex-cop, and there was a lot of video evidence of misconduct, so...

[weemadando]

There's a reason that sane countries don't elect positions such as "DA" or equivalent.

Because it's insane to have such a position decided by popularity contest rather than professional merit.

[ThomasP]

Feelings about the legitimacy of capital punishment aside*, this seems like a pretty clear example of why any death penalty case needs to be held to strict standards. Chocula's argument about "preponderance of evidence" is a red herring in the first place, since the standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt. Georgia's technicalities aside, the fact that there is a substantial doubt in this case should have been enough to deny the death penalty. Keep the man in jail if you must, but execution with this degree of uncertainty is shameful.

* The deterrence effects are almost nonexistent (if they exist at all), and the sheer distance in time between the crime and the execution is enough to make me wonder if we're even punishing the same person in any meaningful sense of the term.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Well, some could say this is what "Justice" is when you kill a Policeman and how the system is always going to find someone to throw under the bus no matter what. Compare that with the justice served to the murderer of Oscar Grant.

[Count Chocula]

Feelings about the legitimacy of capital punishment aside*, this seems like a pretty clear example of why any death penalty case needs to be held to strict standards. Chocula's argument about "preponderance of evidence" is a red herring in the first place, since the standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt. Georgia's technicalities aside, the fact that there is a substantial doubt in this case should have been enough to deny the death penalty. Keep the man in jail if you must, but execution with this degree of uncertainty is shameful.

* The deterrence effects are almost nonexistent (if they exist at all), and the sheer distance in time between the crime and the execution is enough to make me wonder if we're even punishing the same person in any meaningful sense of the term.

You're going to split hairs on some Internet Tough Guy (me) saying "preponderance of evidence" vs. "reasonable doubt?" Come on. Davis was convicted in 1991. The ZOMG recanting of witness testimony happened 19 years after the conviction and was spurred on by ACLU lawyers. Davis' case spent 22 years in Georgia and Federal courts. ALL 8 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES declined to order a stay. The "substantial doubt" you refer to was, apparently, NOT sufficient to overcome the conviction and sentence after multiple reviews at multiple layers. ITT we discover cause celebre opinion /= jurisprudence. Say all you wish about the death penalty, but it seems that the standard of proof was verified in this case.

Oh yeah, and lest any of you still think the US is just full of n-word hating n-word killing star chamber loving assholes, have a look at these charts from deathpenalty.info.

[Bakustra]

You just claimed that the ACLU coerced witnesses into claiming that they had been pressured by police into exaggerating your testimony. You realize that this is a significant crime, right? You should be prepared to back up your accusations.

[Count Chocula]

Bakustra, I said "spurred on," not "coerced." Don't put fucking words in my mouth. Anyway, turns out I was wrong; as best I can follow, Amnesty International was the first to allege that 9 witnesses recanted their testimony.

[Bakustra]

Bakustra, I said "spurred on," not "coerced." Don't put fucking words in my mouth. Anyway, turns out I was wrong; as best I can follow, Amnesty International was the first to allege that 9 witnesses recanted their testimony.

You know that in the context you presented it in, "spurred on" is fundamentally equal to "coerced", as you were implying that the recantations were somehow false, right? Or are you really this inept with writing?

[Count Chocula]

You do realize that coercion involves force or the threat of force? How, pray tell, would Amnesty International coerce witnesses to a case years after the fact when they don't actually have any power over those witnesses?

[Bakustra]

You do realize that coercion involves force or the threat of force? How, pray tell, would Amnesty International coerce witnesses to a case years after the fact when they don't actually have any power over those witnesses?

So you're not going to admit that it was a bad idea to impugn the ACLU/Amnesty International, instead hinging your defense of your conduct on the technical definition of a word. God damn you're an idiot.

[Master of Ossus]

You do realize that coercion involves force or the threat of force? How, pray tell, would Amnesty International coerce witnesses to a case years after the fact when they don't actually have any power over those witnesses?

So you're not going to admit that it was a bad idea to impugn the ACLU/Amnesty International, instead hinging your defense of your conduct on the technical definition of a word. God damn you're an idiot.

Bakustra, you started this entire thread hijack by screeching that he accused them of a crime, and stated that this was some serious breach of protocol. A statute invariably requires a marginally accurate definition of the terms constituting that statute--in fact, in many cases key terms are defined within the statute even if they have generally accepted definitions in order to improve clarity. Saying that your accusation is false because the actions he attributed to them did not constitute that crime is a perfectly valid defense to your claim, and you're just being obtuse by dismissing it so lightly.

Also, why is it a bad idea to impugn ACLU/Amnesty International? Are you extending your personal blanket of immunity from criticism to protect them now, as well?

[Count Chocula]

Piss off, Bakustra. Here are the Amnesty International affidavits from 2007. Oddly, they didn't change the outcome of the case after judicial review. Then go back and read whackadoodle's post at the top of the page. So yes I impugn Amnesty International, and what the hell, the ACLU, Bob Barr, and Harry Belafonte, and Big Al Yankovic.

[SpaceMarine93]

I would say after this fiasco the US judicial system may need some serious reviewing, because despite the legality of this execution it looked more like a lynching. They may want to look at the police' reasons for prosecuting Troy as well, because it look rather too suspicious.

And like it or not, I kind of suspect that this would be bad news for Rick Perry. The people would definitely want his head (metaphorically speaking) for this.

[Bakustra]

It's a bad idea to heavily imply that the ACLU/Amnesty International got illegitimate recantations out of those witnesses, which is what Chocula did, because it is accusing them of obstruction of justice. That does not rely on pedantry about the specific definition of coercion. Now, you can either admit that you responded because you are breaking the injunction against pursuing a vendetta, or you can explain why you hate AI and the ACLU, or you can admit that you didn't read closely. Which is it going to be, I wonder? Perhaps option 4: accuse me of a bunch of shit and ignore everything I post.

Piss off, Bakustra. Here are the Amnesty International affidavits from 2007. Oddly, they didn't change the outcome of the case after judicial review. Then go back and read whackadoodle's post at the top of the page. So yes I impugn Amnesty International, and what the hell, the ACLU, Bob Barr, and Harry Belafonte, and Big Al Yankovic.

So you formally accuse Amnesty International of obstruction of justice and incitement to perjury on the grounds that the US Supreme Court did not find in favor and that the prosecution did not admit intimidating eyewitnesses. Really.