In our crazy/busy world, we at USDemocrazy know how easy it is to miss interesting stories… (in our case it is because we are crazy/busy sleeping)
We nearly missed this story.Fortunately our eagle eyed (and awake) legal correspondent spotted this rare, rare event.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ordered a new hearing for a death row inmate, Troy Anthony Davis.
Mr. Davis was convicted in 1989 for the murder of an off-duty police officer. However, since that time, the evidence against Davis has been more than a little questionable.
Davis’ case has attracted the attentions of not only the Supreme Court, but the international community as well (including the likes of Pope Benedict XVI, former president Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu).
This is really interesting stuff, for any of you law junkies out there. Here’s a bit of a rundown on Tuesday’s decision.
So, the first question. Why would somebody think that Davis could be innocent after a fair trial. The NYTimes has us covered there:
Seven of the witnesses against Mr. Davis have recanted, and several people have implicated the prosecution’s main witness as the actual killer of the officer, Mark MacPhail.
So, obviously, there is some serious room for doubt in this case. If there is such serious doubt, and a man’s life is on the line, you’d think the Supreme Court would unanimously behind holding a new hearing…
Nope. The Washington Post has us covered on this front:
Justice Antonin Scalia objected to the court’s decision to order a new hearing, an “extraordinary step” he said the court had not taken in nearly 50 years. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, he called the action a “fool’s errand” and a “confusing exercise that can serve no purpose except to delay the state’s execution of its lawful criminal judgment.”
“How can this be?” you ask? Well, this is legal stuff, so it does come down to a point of law. The WSJ Law Blog poses the question for us:
It’s a fascinating question: does the Constitution require a stay of execution of a convicted defendant who had fair trial but later is able to show that he’s actually innocent?
Crazy stuff, isn’t it? You’re guilty, but you’re not, though you got a fair trial that ended unfairly. Whew, its got us dizzy. Time for a nap.
