TROY DAVIS CASE: L.A. TIMES SEES SUPREME COURT AS AT LAST MAKING A RULING THAT MAY HELP FREE THE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED;

"IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE A LEGAL RIGHT MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE ONE'S INNOCENCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ALTERNATIVE IS EXECUTION. IF THE REPRIEVE FOR DAVIS INDICATES THE COURT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THAT PRINCIPLE, HE IS NOT THE ONLY WINNER IN THIS CASE."

EDITORIAL: THE LOS ANGELES TIMES;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: (Wikipedia); The Troy Davis case concerns the case of Troy Anthony Davis, a former sports coach from the U.S. state of Georgia, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1991 for the August 19, 1989 murder of off-duty Savannah, Georgia police officer Mark MacPhail. Throughout the trial and subsequent appeals, Davis maintained his innocence, claiming he was wrongfully convicted of the crime as a result of false identification. After the trial and first set of appeals, seven of the nine prosecution eyewitnesses who had linked Davis to the killing recanted or contradicted their original trial testimony, claiming police coercion and questionable interrogation tactics. The witness who first implicated Davis and has remained consistent, Sylvester "Redd" Coles, was initially a suspect in the crime. Coles was seen acting suspiciously the night of MacPhail's murder and has been heard boasting that he killed an off-duty police officer. There is only one witness who did not recant his testimony and is not himself a suspect in the murder, but he made an in-court identification of Davis two years after the crime.Davis opponents say Coles came back to the scene of the shooting with a female after police arrived. Davis changed clothes (even asking Coles for a shirt later) and fled to Atlanta with his sister. Davis has repeatedly asked the courts to examine the new exculpatory evidence, but so far has not been successful in persuading a majority of judges to grant him a new trial or conduct a hearing in which the recanting eyewitnesses could be cross-examined to determine the credibility of Davis’ innocence claims. In October 2008, Davis filed a second Habeas petition in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that it was the first time Davis was presenting a free-standing innocence claim and that no court has yet held an evidentiary hearing on the exculpatory evidence of recanted testimony. On 16 April 2009 the three-judge panel denied Davis' petition on procedural grounds by a 2-1 majority. Amnesty International has strongly condemned the refusal of U.S. courts to examine the innocence evidence, and has organized rallies and letter-writing campaigns to persuade the Georgia and Federal courts to grant Davis a new trial or an evidentiary hearing. Many prominent politicians and leaders, including President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Presidential candidate Bob Barr, and former FBI Director and judge William S. Sessions have called upon the courts to grant Davis a new trial or evidentiary hearing. On 17 August 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court, over the dissenting votes of two justices, ordered a federal district court in Georgia to consider and rule on whether new evidence "that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Los Angeles times editorial, published Tuesday, ran under the heading, "Innocent and in jail: The Supreme Court has at last made a ruling that may help free the wrongfully convicted."

"Whatever their views about capital punishment, most Americans probably assume that a convicted defendant will be released from prison if he can prove that he didn't commit the crime," the editorial begins.

"In fact, the Supreme Court has stopped short of endorsing what lawyers call the "actual innocence" doctrine. But an unexpected order in a Georgia death penalty case may indicate that the justices are coming around to a common-sense view about the due process of law," it continues.

"Last week, they ordered a federal court in Georgia to reconsider the case of death row inmate Troy Anthony Davis, convicted of murdering an off-duty police officer 18 years ago. Since then, seven prosecution witnesses have recanted their testimony, and dignitaries including former President Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Pope Benedict XVI have pleaded for clemency, with the pope's representative providing Georgia officials with a detailed critique of the evidence used to convict Davis.

A new hearing for Davis is welcome as a matter of individual justice, though it raises the question of whether similarly wronged prisoners will be denied relief because they don't have the support of prelates, politicians and movie stars. But the broader significance is that the court said a lower court should "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence."

In dissenting from the order, Justice Antonin Scalia (joined by Justice Clarence Thomas) complained that the court "has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." The dissenters are right about the history of the actual innocence doctrine, which is one reason the ruling in favor of Davis is so surprising.

The order confounded expectations in two other ways. As recently as October 2008, the justices declined, with no explanation, to hear an appeal by Davis. In June, the court refused to holdthat a convicted defendant in an Alaska case had a right to a DNA test that might clear him. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that 46 states already provide such access, but he also cavalierly contended that a state's refusal to afford a prisoner DNA testing didn't offend "some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."

It's hard to imagine a legal right more fundamental than the opportunity to prove one's innocence, especially when the alternative is execution. If the reprieve for Davis indicates the court's acceptance of that principle, he is not the only winner in this case."

See the editorial at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-innocence25-2009aug25,0,7985126.story

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;