Is Georgia going to execute an Innocent man?

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And this, except for the last bit. If Troy Davis is indeed innocent, isn't it also possible that those "accused of the perceived miscarriage of justice" may be wrongly accused? No one is to blame except for those who are actually responsible.

I don't think any sane person would disagree with you on this point. From my perspective, there is no clear picture of who is being wrongfully accused. After all, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he is guilty and the length of the SCOTUS debate alone makes me think they have failed to do so.

(Of course, I am as far from a lawyer as you can get so I am probably wrong on many of these points, and I will of course concede to GC's resident lawyer.)

I also don't believe he should be executed, as I don't believe anyone should every be put to death, but that is something I personally feel and believe. (I even include the white supremacist in Texas who was put to death today in Texas's 11th execution this year.)

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOEforme

I don't think any sane person would disagree with you on this point. From my perspective, there is no clear picture of who is being wrongfully accused. After all, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he is guilty and the length of the SCOTUS debate alone makes me think they have failed to do so.

It is the jury that has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, not SCOTUS. The role of an appellate court is not to re-examine the evidence, but to ensure that a trial was fair (in terms of constitutional rights, proper legal procedure, etc.) and free of error that might have prejudiced the defendant. While an appellate court can find the there was not evidence from which a reasonable jury could have determined guilt, an appellate court cannot substitute its view of the evidence for the jury's.

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It is the jury that has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, not SCOTUS. The role of an appellate court is not to re-examine the evidence, but to ensure that a trial was fair (in terms of constitutional rights, proper legal procedure, etc.) and free of error that might have prejudiced the defendant. While an appellate court can find the there was not evidence from which a reasonable jury could have determined guilt, an appellate court cannot substitute its view of the evidence for the jury's.

See I knew I had something incorrect. Thank you!

So (just to make sure I am understanding this), SCOTUS will be able to evaluate if there was coercion, a mistrial, falsified evidence, etc. but not be able to evaluate if the prosecution actually proved guilt?

[AGDLynn]

Execution will happen.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOEforme

So (just to make sure I am understanding this), SCOTUS will be able to evaluate if there was coercion, a mistrial, falsified evidence, etc. but not be able to evaluate if the prosecution actually proved guilt?

Close. SCOTUS will be able to review decisions of lower courts about these things to determine whether the lower courts committed some error or need to reconsider anything. This includes whatever may be in the record about the evidence offered at trial or the degree to which evidence might be questionable. Ultimately, this could include a finding such as that jury heard evidence that it should not have heard, rendering its verdict unreliable.

In such a case, the result is a new trial, so that a new jury can hear the proper evidence (assuming the prosecution doesn't drop the case), because only a jury can determine guilt.

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Close. SCOTUS will be able to review decisions of lower courts about these things to determine whether the lower courts committed some error or need to reconsider anything. This includes whatever may be in the record about the evidence offered at trial or the degree to which evidence might be questionable. Ultimately, this could include a finding such as that jury heard evidence that it should not have heard, rendering its verdict unreliable.

In such a case, the result is a new trial, so that a new jury can hear the proper evidence (assuming the prosecution doesn't drop the case), because only a jury can determine guilt.

Thanks for the explanation.

[CutiePie2000]

I need to read up a bit more about this Georgia situation, as I don't know much about what's happening...

However, the whole debacle of a miscarriage of justice potentially about to happen reminds me of the miscarriage of justice of what happened to David Milgaard in Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Milgaard
If my math is correct, David Milgaard was convicted at age 17 or 18, and did 23 years in prison for a crime he did not commit (and yes, they did catch the real rapist and killer later, which is this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Fisher)

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Question: While everyone is discussing the finer points of Troy Davis' execution, who feels that Lawrence Brewster, also put to death tonight, should have lived?

Originally Posted by AOEforme

I also don't believe he should be executed, as I don't believe anyone should every be put to death, but that is something I personally feel and believe. (I even include the white supremacist in Texas who was put to death today in Texas's 11th execution this year.)

I do.