"Knowing what we know now, these guys should never have been convicted.
Instead, they find themselves on death row. The time is drawing close.
I could be referring to any number of folks, but I have two in mind.
There's Kevin Keith. Last week, the Ohio Parole Board declared that he wasn't factually innocent and should, therefore, be killed. I've said repeatedly, I don't know what happened that night in February 1994 when Keith did or did not shoot 6 people. The implication is that they'd have taken a different position if they decided he didn't do it.
Now there's Troy Davis. You remember Troy. All those witnesses who recanted. And the guy who confessed. And the Supremes told the lower court judge to determine if he was innocent but didn't say on what basis or how or what would follow from the determination. And the judge held a hearing and excluded much of the evidence Troy's lawyers wanted to present......
It's really sweet, gives you a warm feeling all over to know that there's some sentiment that killing factually innocent people is a bad idea. Now, what about the legally innocent but for bad counsel, hidden evidence, lying witnesses, mistaken witnesses, junk science, junk witnesses, aggravated newpaper editors and talk radio, racism, class prejudice, the accidents of geography and birth? I could go on.
They still don't have to kill Kevin Keith. Troy Davis has litigation ahead. But their time is running out. Things aren't looking good for them right now.
And there are a few thousand others on the row.
Innocence may be a start, but it isn't nearly enough."
JEFF GAMSO: GAMSO FOR THE DEFENCE;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: On the evening of February 13, 1994, Marichell Chatman, her daughter Marchae, and Marichell’s aunt Linda Chatman were shot to death at the Bucyrus Estates Apartments in Bucyrus, Ohio. Richard Warren, Marichell’s boyfriend, and Marichell’s young cousins, Quanita and Quinton Reeves, were also shot but survived. On February 15, 1994, Kevin Keith was arrested for these shootings. By May 31, 1994, Mr. Keith was sentenced to death for this crime. From crime to sentencing, only three-and-a-half months passed. In spite of his alibi and no conclusive forensic evidence proving his involvement, Mr. Keith was convicted in 1994 and sentenced to death. In 2007, after all his allotted appeals were exhausted, new counsel took on Mr. Keith’s case. Upon investigating, counsel discovered new evidence for Mr. Keith that supported what Mr. Keith was saying from day one – he is actually innocent. The new evidence proves that the primary evidence used to convict Keith was flawed. The eyewitness identification testimony by a surviving victim was improperly influenced. Thirteen years after he was convicted, Mr. Keith discovered that one of the State’s “witnesses” does not actually exist. At Keith’s trial, the police had testified about a fictitious person and attributed a statement to her in order to bolster the shaky identification testimony of the surviving victim. Mr. Keith’s new evidence further implicates an alternative suspect who told a police informant that he was paid to carry out the murders for which Keith is scheduled to die. The police were aware of the statements by the alternative suspect, but no one turned them over to Keith’s counsel. Kevin Keith has thus far failed to persuade the state's clemency board or the courts to stop his execution which is set for September 15, 2010.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,[6] 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 title of this post may be a shade deceptive. As I say routinely, I don't know what happened. And, frankly, I don't much care," Jeff Gamso's post published earlier today under the heading, "Innocence Wins, Innocents Still Lose," begins.
"But I know this much. Knowing what we know now, these guys should never have been convicted," the post continues.
"Instead, they find themselves on death row. The time is drawing close.
I could be referring to any number of folks, but I have two in mind.
There's Kevin Keith. Last week, the Ohio Parole Board declared that he wasn't factually innocent and should, therefore, be killed. I've said repeatedly, I don't know what happened that night in February 1994 when Keith did or did not shoot 6 people. The implication is that they'd have taken a different position if they decided he didn't do it.
Now there's Troy Davis. You remember Troy. All those witnesses who recanted. And the guy who confessed. And the Supremes told the lower court judge to determine if he was innocent but didn't say on what basis or how or what would follow from the determination. And the judge held a hearing and excluded much of the evidence Troy's lawyers wanted to present. And now he's issued this 174 page Order.
The bottom line is in the first paragraph.
For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that while executing an innocent person would violate the United States Constitution, Mr. Davis has failed to prove his innocence.
That first clause is terrific. It may seem self-evident, but it's not. The Supremes have never said it. It's never formally been adopted as the law of the land. It is, in fact, a wholly controversial claim. If executing one who is actually innocent, by whatever measure we use to test it, is a constitutional violation, then the courts have to grapple with freestanding claims of innocence in capital habeas cases. Until now, the courts have refused to entertain those claims.
Like I said, no small thing.
But for Troy Davis, it's nothing at all. Because there's that second clause. He didn't prove it to the satisfaction of Judge Moore.
But when you get right down to it, isn't it the same point? Given what we know now, would a reasonable jury have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Would it have decided to kill the guy?
If not, what are we doing? And, in any event, why don't we even ask that question?
This isn't the raving of an abolitionist. (Well, yeah, it is. But I'm not speaking as an abolitionist here.) It's the question you need to answer even if you think the government should kill. Should it kill even if the defendant, properly tried and with all available information, would have gotten life? Should it kill because it was once a good idea even if it isn't now?
Should killing be the default?
It's really sweet, gives you a warm feeling all over to know that there's some sentiment that killing factually innocent people is a bad idea. Now, what about the legally innocent but for bad counsel, hidden evidence, lying witnesses, mistaken witnesses, junk science, junk witnesses, aggravated newpaper editors and talk radio, racism, class prejudice, the accidents of geography and birth? I could go on. They still don't have to kill Kevin Keith. Troy Davis has litigation ahead. But their time is running out. Things aren't looking good for them right now. And there are a few thousand others on the row.
Innocence may be a start, but it isn't nearly enough."
-----------------------------------------
From Songs of Innocence and of Experience by William Blake
"On Another's Sorrow" (Songs of Innocence)
Can I see another's woe,
Can I see another's grief,
And not be in sorrow too?
And not seek for kind relief?
Can I see a falling tear,
Can a father see his child
And not feel my sorrow's share?
Weep, nor be with sorrow fill'd?
Can a mother sit and hear
An infant groan, an infant fear?
No, no! never can it be!
Never, never can it be!
And can he who smiles on all
Hear the wren with sorrows small,
Hear the small bird's grief & care,
Hear the woes that infants bear,
And not sit beside the nest,
Pouring pity in their breast;
And not sit the cradle near,
Weeping tear on infant's tear;
And not sit both night & day,
Wiping all our tears away?
O! no, never can it be!
Never, never can it be!
He doth give his joy to all;
He becomes an infant small;
He becomes a man of woe;
He doth feel the sorrow too.
Think not thou canst sigh a sigh,
And thy maker is not by;
Think not thou canst weep a tear,
And thy maker is not near.
O! he gives to us his joy
That our grief he may destroy;
Till our grief is fled & gone
He doth sit by us and moan.
"The Voice of the Ancient Bard" (Songs of Experience)
Youth of delight, come hither,
And see the opening morn,
Image of truth new-born.
Doubt is fled & clouds of reason,
Dark disputes & artful teazing.
Folly is an endless maze,
Tangled roots perplex her ways.
How many have fallen there!
They stumble all night over bones of the dead,
And feel they know not what but care,
And wish to lead others, when they should be led.
--------------------------------------------
http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2010/08/innocence-wins-innocents-still-lose.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is The Age of Progressive Prosecutors Over?
6 hours ago
