Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Saudi Arabia and The United States of America: Equal Justice....
Here are a few statements justifying executions. The statements come from the Saudi Interior Ministry, the Texas Attorney General's Office and the Georgia Attorney General's Office: they are followed by a word on innocence by that enormous (in the archaic sense of the word) jurist, Justice Antonin Scalia:
Legal Killing of Sri Lankan Housemaid in Saudi Arabia: Saudi Interior Ministry statement
...
Dawadmi 27 zero in 1434, corresponding to January 9, 2013, (SPA ) Interior Ministry issued a statement today on the implementation of the rule of murder: retribution in offenders Dawadmi, and statement reads as follows:
Statement of the Ministry of Interior
“Said God (O ye who believe books you retribution in dead) verse Almighty said - and you in retribution life, O men of understanding Fountain of Faith proceeded domestic worker/ Nafeek Risan – Sri Lankan Nationality – to kill the baby Kayed bin Nayef bin Dzean Otaibi – Saudi nationality – and so strangled him because of a dispute between them and his mother, which led to his death and the grace of God was Security authorities able to arrest of the offending mentioned, and resulted in investigation and indicted for committing crime and transmitted to the General Court , issued its right legal deed requires certified attributed to religiously and judged murder retribution and ratified the judgment of the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Court. The order was issued and enforcement is decided legitimately and honestly attributed against offending mentioned been implemented rule murder retribution Paljanah/ Nafeek Rizan day Wednesday 02/27/1434 e in bejadyah Riyadh and the interior Ministry as announced this to confirm to all keen Government of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques – May God protect him – on security and justice and the implementation of the provisions of God in each of infringing on innocent people and shed their blood and at the same time warns of begging him to distance himself such that and Allah is the Guide to the Straight Path legitimate punishment would be doomed.”
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2013/01/09/legal-killing-sri-lankan-housemaid-saudi-arabia-saudi-interior-ministry-statement
...
Dawadmi 27 zero in 1434, corresponding to January 9, 2013, (SPA ) Interior Ministry issued a statement today on the implementation of the rule of murder: retribution in offenders Dawadmi, and statement reads as follows:
Statement of the Ministry of Interior
“Said God (O ye who believe books you retribution in dead) verse Almighty said - and you in retribution life, O men of understanding Fountain of Faith proceeded domestic worker/ Nafeek Risan – Sri Lankan Nationality – to kill the baby Kayed bin Nayef bin Dzean Otaibi – Saudi nationality – and so strangled him because of a dispute between them and his mother, which led to his death and the grace of God was Security authorities able to arrest of the offending mentioned, and resulted in investigation and indicted for committing crime and transmitted to the General Court , issued its right legal deed requires certified attributed to religiously and judged murder retribution and ratified the judgment of the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Court. The order was issued and enforcement is decided legitimately and honestly attributed against offending mentioned been implemented rule murder retribution Paljanah/ Nafeek Rizan day Wednesday 02/27/1434 e in bejadyah Riyadh and the interior Ministry as announced this to confirm to all keen Government of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques – May God protect him – on security and justice and the implementation of the provisions of God in each of infringing on innocent people and shed their blood and at the same time warns of begging him to distance himself such that and Allah is the Guide to the Straight Path legitimate punishment would be doomed.”
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2013/01/09/legal-killing-sri-lankan-housemaid-saudi-arabia-saudi-interior-ministry-statement
Media Advisory: Cameron Todd Willingham Scheduled For Execution
Austin – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott offers the following information about 35-year-old Cameron Todd Willingham, who is scheduled to be executed after 6 p.m. February 17, 2004. Willingham. a former auto mechanic, was sentenced to death for killing his three young children in the family’s house in Corsicana in December 1991.
FACTS OF THE CRIME
The opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal summarized the offense as follows:
The evidence provided at the trial showed that on December 23, 1991, Willingham poured a combustible liquid on the floor throughout his home and intentionally set the house on fire, resulting in the death of his three children. According to autopsy reports, Amber, age two, and twins Karmon and Kameron, age 1, died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of smoke inhalation. Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children. An expert witness for the State testified that the floors, front threshold, and front concrete porch were burned, which only occurs when an accelerant has been used to purposely burn these areas. The witness further testified that this igniting of the floors and thresholds is typically employed to impede firemen in their rescue attempts.
The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned. One of Willingham’s neighbors testified that the morning following the house fire, Christmas Eve, Willingham and his wife were at the burned house going through the debris while playing music and laughing.
CRIMINAL HISTORY/PUNISHMENT PHASE EVIDENCE
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals summarized the evidence presented during the punishment phase of Willingham’s trial as follows:
At the punishment phase of trial, testimony was presented that Willingham has a history of violence. He has been convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors, both as an adult and as a juvenile, and attempts at various forms of rehabilitation have proven unsuccessful.
The jury also heard evidence of Willingham’s character. Witnesses testified that Willingham was verbally and physically abusive toward his family, and that at one time he beat his pregnant wife in an effort to cause a miscarriage. A friend of Willingham’s testified that Willingham once bragged about brutally killing a dog. In fact, Willingham openly admitted to a fellow inmate that he purposely started this fire to conceal evidence that the children had been abused.
Dr. James Grigson testified for the state at punishment. According to his testimony, Willingham fits the profile of a sociopath whose conduct becomes more violent over time, and who lacks a conscience. Grigson explained that a person with this degree of sociopathy commonly has no regard for other people’s property or for other human beings. He expressed his opinion that an individual demonstrating this type of behavior can not be rehabilitated in any manner, and that such a person certainly poses a continuing threat to society.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has lawful and valid custody of Willingham pursuant to a judgment and sentence of the 13th Judicial District Court of Navarro County, Texas. On August 20, 1993, the jury found Willingham guilty of capital murder and, after a separate punishment phase hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of death.
Willingham’s judgment and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review on October 30, 1995. Willingham then filed a state writ of habeas corpus on which the trial court recommended denying relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the writ of habeas corpus on the findings of the trial court. The U.S. Supreme court denied Willingham’s certiorari petition on June 8, 1998.
Willingham filed a federal writ of habeas corpus in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division on April 21, 1998. The state filed an answer and motion for summary judgment on July 1, 1998, and filed a supplemental answer on October 15, 1998. On July 25, 2000, the federal magistrate issued findings and conclusions and recommended that relief be denied. Subsequently, the court adopted the magistrate’s findings, granted the state’s motion for summary judgment and denied Willingham’s petition for federal habeas relief.
Willingham subsequently filed an application for a certificate of appealability in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The application was denied on February 17, 2003. After the appellate court also denied Willingham’s motion for rehearing, he filed a timely petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court on July 21, 2003. The Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari review on November 3, 2003.
MISCELLANEOUS
For additional information and statistics, please log onto the Texas Department of Criminal Justice website, www.tdcj.state.tx.us.
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=373&PHPSESSID=e9e284391813cdf3d42895341aa9a096
Austin – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott offers the following information about 35-year-old Cameron Todd Willingham, who is scheduled to be executed after 6 p.m. February 17, 2004. Willingham. a former auto mechanic, was sentenced to death for killing his three young children in the family’s house in Corsicana in December 1991.
FACTS OF THE CRIME
The opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal summarized the offense as follows:
The evidence provided at the trial showed that on December 23, 1991, Willingham poured a combustible liquid on the floor throughout his home and intentionally set the house on fire, resulting in the death of his three children. According to autopsy reports, Amber, age two, and twins Karmon and Kameron, age 1, died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of smoke inhalation. Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children. An expert witness for the State testified that the floors, front threshold, and front concrete porch were burned, which only occurs when an accelerant has been used to purposely burn these areas. The witness further testified that this igniting of the floors and thresholds is typically employed to impede firemen in their rescue attempts.
The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned. One of Willingham’s neighbors testified that the morning following the house fire, Christmas Eve, Willingham and his wife were at the burned house going through the debris while playing music and laughing.
CRIMINAL HISTORY/PUNISHMENT PHASE EVIDENCE
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals summarized the evidence presented during the punishment phase of Willingham’s trial as follows:
At the punishment phase of trial, testimony was presented that Willingham has a history of violence. He has been convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors, both as an adult and as a juvenile, and attempts at various forms of rehabilitation have proven unsuccessful.
The jury also heard evidence of Willingham’s character. Witnesses testified that Willingham was verbally and physically abusive toward his family, and that at one time he beat his pregnant wife in an effort to cause a miscarriage. A friend of Willingham’s testified that Willingham once bragged about brutally killing a dog. In fact, Willingham openly admitted to a fellow inmate that he purposely started this fire to conceal evidence that the children had been abused.
Dr. James Grigson testified for the state at punishment. According to his testimony, Willingham fits the profile of a sociopath whose conduct becomes more violent over time, and who lacks a conscience. Grigson explained that a person with this degree of sociopathy commonly has no regard for other people’s property or for other human beings. He expressed his opinion that an individual demonstrating this type of behavior can not be rehabilitated in any manner, and that such a person certainly poses a continuing threat to society.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has lawful and valid custody of Willingham pursuant to a judgment and sentence of the 13th Judicial District Court of Navarro County, Texas. On August 20, 1993, the jury found Willingham guilty of capital murder and, after a separate punishment phase hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of death.
Willingham’s judgment and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review on October 30, 1995. Willingham then filed a state writ of habeas corpus on which the trial court recommended denying relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the writ of habeas corpus on the findings of the trial court. The U.S. Supreme court denied Willingham’s certiorari petition on June 8, 1998.
Willingham filed a federal writ of habeas corpus in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division on April 21, 1998. The state filed an answer and motion for summary judgment on July 1, 1998, and filed a supplemental answer on October 15, 1998. On July 25, 2000, the federal magistrate issued findings and conclusions and recommended that relief be denied. Subsequently, the court adopted the magistrate’s findings, granted the state’s motion for summary judgment and denied Willingham’s petition for federal habeas relief.
Willingham subsequently filed an application for a certificate of appealability in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The application was denied on February 17, 2003. After the appellate court also denied Willingham’s motion for rehearing, he filed a timely petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court on July 21, 2003. The Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari review on November 3, 2003.
MISCELLANEOUS
For additional information and statistics, please log onto the Texas Department of Criminal Justice website, www.tdcj.state.tx.us.
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=373&PHPSESSID=e9e284391813cdf3d42895341aa9a096
PRESS ADVISORY
Execution Set for Troy Anthony Davis, Convicted of 1989 Murder of Savannah Police Officer
September 7, 2011
Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens offers the following information in the case against Troy Anthony Davis, who is currently scheduled to be executed on September 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
Scheduled Execution
On September 6, 2011, the Superior CourtofChathamCounty filed an order, setting the seven-day window in which the execution of Troy Anthony Davis may occur to begin at noon on September 21, 2011, and ending seven days later at noon on September 28, 2011. The Commissioner of the Department of Corrections then set the specific date and time for the execution as 7:00 pm on September 21, 2011. Davis has concluded his direct appeal proceedings and his state and federal habeas corpus proceedings.
Davis’ Crimes
At approximately 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, August 19, 1989, officers of the Savannah Police Department responded to a call of “an officer down” at the Greyhound bus station. (T. 759)[1]. Officers found Mark MacPhail, a 27 year-old Savannah police officer, lying face down in the parking lot of the Burger King restaurant next to the bus station. (T. 759). Officer MacPhail’s mouth was filled with blood and bits of his teeth were on the sidewalk. As he began administering CPR to the victim, Officer Owens noticed that the victim’s firearm was still snapped into his holster. (T. 761).
Larry Young, who was present at the scene, told police that between midnight and 1:00 a.m. he had walked from the Burger King parking lot to the convenience store down the block to purchase beer. (T. 797-798). Sylvester “Red” Coles saw Young leave the pool hall next door and began following Young demanding a beer. (T. 798). Coles continued to harass Mr. Young all the way back to the Burger King. (T. 799). When Young arrived at the parking lot, Harriet Murray was sitting on a low wall by the restaurant. Davis and Daryl Collins, who had taken a shortcut to the parking lot, came out from behind the bank and surrounded Mr. Young. (T. 799). Mr. Coles, who was facing Mr. Young, told him not to walk away “cause you don’t know me, I’ll shoot you,” and began digging in his pants. (T. 845). Ms. Murray ran to the back door of the Burger King, which was locked. (T. 799). Davis, who was behind Young and to his right, blind-sided him, striking him on the side of the face with a snub-nosed pistol, inflicting a severe head injury. Mr. Young began to bleed profusely, and he stumbled to a van parked in front of the Burger King drive-in window, asking the occupants for help. (T. 803). When the driver did not respond, he went to the drive-in window, but the manager shut it in his face. (T. 803, 915).
In response to the disturbance in the parking lot, Officer MacPhail, who was working as a security guard at the restaurant, walked rapidly from behind the bus station, with his nightstick in his hand and ordered the three men to halt. (T. 849). Mr. Collins and Davis fled, and Officer MacPhail ran past Sylvester Coles in pursuit of Davis. (T. 851). Davis looked over his shoulder, and when the officer was five to six feet away, shot him. Officer MacPhail fell to the ground, and Davis walked towards him and shot him again while he was on the ground. (T. 850). One eyewitness testified that Davis was smiling at the time. (T. 851). The victim died of gunshot wounds before help arrived.
Davis fled to Atlanta the following day and surrendered to authorities on August 23, 1989.
Pursuant to an investigation, police learned that on the night of the killing, Davis had attended a party on Cloverdale Drive in a subdivision near Savannah. (T. 1115-1116). During the party, Davis, annoyed that some girls ignored him, told several of his friends something about “burning them.” (T. 146). Davis then walked around saying, “I feel like doing something, anything.” (T. 1464). When Michael Cooper and his friends were leaving the party, Davis was standing out front. (T. 1120). Michael Cooper was in the front passenger seat, and as the car pulled away, several of the men in the car leaned out the window shouting and throwing things. (T. 1120, 1186). Davis shot at the car from a couple of hundred feet away and the bullet shattered the back windshield and lodged in Michael Cooper’s right jaw. (T. 1186). Cooper was treated at the hospital and released and Cooper’s injury formed the basis for Count IV of Davis’ indictment. The shooting incident took place approximately one hour before Officer MacPhail was shot.
Shortly after Michael Cooper was shot, Eric Ellison and D.D. Collins picked up Davis in Cloverdale and took him to Brown’s Pool Hall in Savannah. Red Coles, wearing a yellow t-shirt, was already at the pool hall.
A ballistics expert testified that the bullet recovered from MacPhail’s body was of the same type and was possibly fired from the same weapon as used in the Cooper shooting. (T. 1292). Four .38 special casings recovered at Cloverdale, where Michael Cooper was wounded, were fired from the same gun as casings found at the scene of Officer MacPhail’s murder. (T. 1292).
At trial, Kevin McQueen, who was at the Chatham City Jail with Davis, testified that Davis told him there had been a party in Cloverdale on the night of the victim’s murder; Davis had argued with some men and there was an exchange of gunfire. (T. 1230-1231). Davis told McQueen he did some of the shooting. (T. 1231). After the party, Davis went to a girlfriend’s house and intended to eat breakfast at Burger King. Davis stated that he was with a friend and they ran into a guy who “owed money to buy dope.” (T. 1231). There was a fight, Officer MacPhail appeared, and Davis shot him in the face. As Officer MacPhail attempted to get up, Davis shot him again, because he was afraid MacPhail had seen him that night at Cloverdale. (T. 1232). Davis also told McQueen that he was on his way out of town to Atlanta. (T. 1232).
Jeffrey Lapp testified that Davis told him he did the shooting at Burger King, but that it was self-defense. (T. 1249-1252). Mr. Lapp noted that Davis’ street name was RAH, standing for “Rough As Hell.” (T. 1257).
Red Coles identified Davis as the perpetrator of Officer MacPhail’s murder, as did numerous other eyewitnesses, including Harriet Murray, Dorothy Ferrell, Daryl Collins, Antoine Williams, Steven Sanders and Larry Young.
Davis testified at trial. Davis admitted that he was present at the scene of the shooting on the night in question, but denied that he was involved in the shooting of Cooper or the victim or the assault on Larry Young.
The Trial (1989-1991)
Davis was found Davis guilty of one count of malice murder, one count of obstruction of a law enforcement officer, two counts of aggravated assault and one count of possession of firearm during the commission of a felony. The jury’s recommendation of a death sentence was returned on August 30, 1991. The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Davis’ convictions and death sentence on February 26, 1993. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 426 S.E.2d 844 (1993). The Georgia Supreme Court specifically found that the evidence presented at Davis’ trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, by stating that, “The evidence supports the conviction on all counts.” Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 7 (1993).
State Habeas Corpus Petition (1994-2001)
Davis, represented by the Georgia ResourceCenter, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Butts County, Georgia on March 15, 1994. An evidentiary hearing was held on December 16, 1996.
On September 9, 1997, the state habeas corpus court denied Davis state habeas corpus relief, including his claim that he was not the shooter. (State habeas corpus order of September 5, 1997, denying relief, page 41). The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of state habeas corpus relief on November 13, 2000. Davis v. Turpin, 273 Ga. 244, 539 S.E.2d 129 (2000).
Davis then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on October 1, 2001. Davis v. Turpin, 534 U.S. 842, 122 S.Ct. 100 (2001).
Federal Habeas Corpus Petition (2001-2004)
Davis, represented by Thomas Dunn, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, on December 14, 2001. On May 13, 2004, the district court denied Davis federal habeas corpus relief. In its order denying relief, the federal habeas corpus court denied Davis a federal evidentiary hearing stating that, “this Court finds that because the submitted affidavits are insufficient to raise doubts as to the constitutionality of the result at trial, there is no danger of a miscarriage of justice in declining to consider the claim.” (Federal habeas corpus order of 5/13/04, p. 25.).
11th Circuit Court of Appeals (2004-2006)
The case was orally argued before the Eleventh Circuit on September 7, 2005. On September 26, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion which affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief to Davis. Davis v. Terry, 465 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2006). In the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion, the Court noted, “In this case, Davis does not make a substantive claim of actual innocence. Rather, he argues that his constitutional claims of an unfair trial must be considered, even though they are otherwise procedurally defaulted, because he has made the requisite showing of actual innocence under Schlup.” Davis v. Terry, 465 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 2006). Reviewing each of Davis’s claims, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief by stating the following, “Having very carefully considered this record, we cannot say that the district court erred in concluding that Davis has not borne his burden to establish a viable claim that his trial was constitutionally unfair.” Davis v. Terry, 465 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2006). Davis filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on April 11, 2007, which was denied on June 25, 2007.
Original Execution Date Set (July 17, 2007)
On June 29, 2007, Chief Judge Perry Brannen, Jr. of the SuperiorCourtofChathamCounty filed an order setting the execution of Troy Anthony Davis for July 17, 2007. Davis filed a motion for stay of execution and an extraordinary motion for new trial. The trial court granted a stay, and then “exhaustively reviewed” each submitted affidavit “and considered in great detail the relevant trial testimony, if any, corresponding to each.” In denying the extraordinary motion for new trial, the trial court concluded that, “Defendant has failed to carry the burden on each and every submitted affidavit.”
On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court extensively reviewed each category of “affidavit testimony” on which Petitioner’s extraordinary motion relied, including: “recantations by trial witnesses,” “statements recounting alleged admissions of guilt by Coles,” “statements that Coles disposed of a handgun following the murder” and “alleged eyewitness accounts.” Davis v. State, 283 Ga. 438, 441-447, 660 S.E.2d 354 (2008). The Georgia Supreme Court held that, “Upon our careful review of Davis’s extraordinary motion for new trial and the trial record, we find that Davis failed to present such facts in his motion and, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion without a hearing.” Davis v. State, 283 Ga. at 448.
New Execution Date Set (September 23, 2008)
A new execution date was set for Troy Anthony Davis for September 23, 2008. On September 12, 2008, the Board of Pardons and Paroles denied commutation of death sentence and issued the following statement:
The Parole Board does not generally comment on death penalty cases it has considered for clemency. However, the Troy Davis case has received such extensive publicity that the Board has decided to make an exception.
Davis’ attorneys have argued that the Board should grant him clemency because a number of witnesses against Davis changed their earlier statements to the police and their testimony at the trial. Moreover, the attorneys have brought forward other people who now claim to have information that raises doubt as to the guilt of Davis.
Because of these claims, the Parole Board stopped Davis’ execution last year. The Board has now spent more than a year studying and considering this case.
As a part of its proceedings, the Board gave Davis’ attorneys an opportunity to present every witness they desired to support their allegation that there is doubt as to Davis’ guilt. The Board heard each of these witnesses and questioned them closely.
In addition, the Board has studied the voluminous trial transcript, the police investigation report and the initial statements of the witnesses. The Board has also had certain physical evidence retested and Davis interviewed.
After an exhaustive review of all available information regarding the Troy Davis case and after considering all possible reasons for granting clemency, the Board has determined that clemency is not warranted.
On September 23, 2008, the United States Supreme Court entered an order staying the execution pending disposition of Davis’s petition for writ of certiorari that had been previously filed on July 14, 2008. On October 14, 2008, the United States Supreme Court denied Davis’s petition for writ of certiorari, thus terminating the stay of execution. Davis v. Georgia, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 397 (2008).
New Execution Date Set (October 27, 2008)
An new execution date was set for October 27, 2008.
On October 22, 2008, Davis filed an application for leave to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition. Respondent filed a response in opposition on October 23, 2008. On October 24, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit granted a conditional stay of execution and directed both parties to submit briefs addressing specific issues. Both parties submitted briefs, and an oral argument before the Eleventh Circuit was held on December 9, 2008. On April 16, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit denied Davis’s application for leave to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition. In re: Davis, 565 F.3d 810 (11th Cir. 2009). The Eleventh Circuit held:
In short, we are constrained by the statutory requirements found in § 2244(b)(2)(B) to conclude that Davis has not even come close to making a prima facie showing that his Herrera claim relies on (i) facts that could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence, and that (ii), if proven, would “establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B) (2006). He, therefore, cannot file a successive petition.
In re Davis, 565 F.3d at 824.
Davis subsequently filed an original writ in the United States Supreme Court on May 19, 2009. On August 17, 2009, the United States Supreme Court transferred the case to the district court for that court to “receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of the trial establishes petitioner’s innocence.” In re Davis, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1 (2009).
Following briefing and discovery, a federal evidentiary hearing was conducted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, on June 23-24, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the United States District Court entered an order denying Davis’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In denying relief, the district court held:
Ultimately, while Mr. Davis's new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors. The vast majority of the evidence at trial remains intact, and the new evidence is largely not credible or lacking in probative value. After careful consideration, the Court finds that Mr. Davis has failed to make a showing of actual innocence that would entitle him to habeas relief in federal court.
In re: Davis, Case No. CV409-130.
Thereafter, Davis filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on January 21, 2011, which was denied on March 28, 2011.
[1]References to the transcript of Davis’ trial will be referred to as “T”, followed by the appropriate page number of the trial transcript.
http://law.ga.gov/press-releases/2011-09-07/execution-set-troy-anthony-davis-convicted-1989-murder-savannah-police
Execution Set for Troy Anthony Davis, Convicted of 1989 Murder of Savannah Police Officer
September 7, 2011
Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens offers the following information in the case against Troy Anthony Davis, who is currently scheduled to be executed on September 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
Scheduled Execution
On September 6, 2011, the Superior CourtofChathamCounty filed an order, setting the seven-day window in which the execution of Troy Anthony Davis may occur to begin at noon on September 21, 2011, and ending seven days later at noon on September 28, 2011. The Commissioner of the Department of Corrections then set the specific date and time for the execution as 7:00 pm on September 21, 2011. Davis has concluded his direct appeal proceedings and his state and federal habeas corpus proceedings.
Davis’ Crimes
At approximately 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, August 19, 1989, officers of the Savannah Police Department responded to a call of “an officer down” at the Greyhound bus station. (T. 759)[1]. Officers found Mark MacPhail, a 27 year-old Savannah police officer, lying face down in the parking lot of the Burger King restaurant next to the bus station. (T. 759). Officer MacPhail’s mouth was filled with blood and bits of his teeth were on the sidewalk. As he began administering CPR to the victim, Officer Owens noticed that the victim’s firearm was still snapped into his holster. (T. 761).
Larry Young, who was present at the scene, told police that between midnight and 1:00 a.m. he had walked from the Burger King parking lot to the convenience store down the block to purchase beer. (T. 797-798). Sylvester “Red” Coles saw Young leave the pool hall next door and began following Young demanding a beer. (T. 798). Coles continued to harass Mr. Young all the way back to the Burger King. (T. 799). When Young arrived at the parking lot, Harriet Murray was sitting on a low wall by the restaurant. Davis and Daryl Collins, who had taken a shortcut to the parking lot, came out from behind the bank and surrounded Mr. Young. (T. 799). Mr. Coles, who was facing Mr. Young, told him not to walk away “cause you don’t know me, I’ll shoot you,” and began digging in his pants. (T. 845). Ms. Murray ran to the back door of the Burger King, which was locked. (T. 799). Davis, who was behind Young and to his right, blind-sided him, striking him on the side of the face with a snub-nosed pistol, inflicting a severe head injury. Mr. Young began to bleed profusely, and he stumbled to a van parked in front of the Burger King drive-in window, asking the occupants for help. (T. 803). When the driver did not respond, he went to the drive-in window, but the manager shut it in his face. (T. 803, 915).
In response to the disturbance in the parking lot, Officer MacPhail, who was working as a security guard at the restaurant, walked rapidly from behind the bus station, with his nightstick in his hand and ordered the three men to halt. (T. 849). Mr. Collins and Davis fled, and Officer MacPhail ran past Sylvester Coles in pursuit of Davis. (T. 851). Davis looked over his shoulder, and when the officer was five to six feet away, shot him. Officer MacPhail fell to the ground, and Davis walked towards him and shot him again while he was on the ground. (T. 850). One eyewitness testified that Davis was smiling at the time. (T. 851). The victim died of gunshot wounds before help arrived.
Davis fled to Atlanta the following day and surrendered to authorities on August 23, 1989.
Pursuant to an investigation, police learned that on the night of the killing, Davis had attended a party on Cloverdale Drive in a subdivision near Savannah. (T. 1115-1116). During the party, Davis, annoyed that some girls ignored him, told several of his friends something about “burning them.” (T. 146). Davis then walked around saying, “I feel like doing something, anything.” (T. 1464). When Michael Cooper and his friends were leaving the party, Davis was standing out front. (T. 1120). Michael Cooper was in the front passenger seat, and as the car pulled away, several of the men in the car leaned out the window shouting and throwing things. (T. 1120, 1186). Davis shot at the car from a couple of hundred feet away and the bullet shattered the back windshield and lodged in Michael Cooper’s right jaw. (T. 1186). Cooper was treated at the hospital and released and Cooper’s injury formed the basis for Count IV of Davis’ indictment. The shooting incident took place approximately one hour before Officer MacPhail was shot.
Shortly after Michael Cooper was shot, Eric Ellison and D.D. Collins picked up Davis in Cloverdale and took him to Brown’s Pool Hall in Savannah. Red Coles, wearing a yellow t-shirt, was already at the pool hall.
A ballistics expert testified that the bullet recovered from MacPhail’s body was of the same type and was possibly fired from the same weapon as used in the Cooper shooting. (T. 1292). Four .38 special casings recovered at Cloverdale, where Michael Cooper was wounded, were fired from the same gun as casings found at the scene of Officer MacPhail’s murder. (T. 1292).
At trial, Kevin McQueen, who was at the Chatham City Jail with Davis, testified that Davis told him there had been a party in Cloverdale on the night of the victim’s murder; Davis had argued with some men and there was an exchange of gunfire. (T. 1230-1231). Davis told McQueen he did some of the shooting. (T. 1231). After the party, Davis went to a girlfriend’s house and intended to eat breakfast at Burger King. Davis stated that he was with a friend and they ran into a guy who “owed money to buy dope.” (T. 1231). There was a fight, Officer MacPhail appeared, and Davis shot him in the face. As Officer MacPhail attempted to get up, Davis shot him again, because he was afraid MacPhail had seen him that night at Cloverdale. (T. 1232). Davis also told McQueen that he was on his way out of town to Atlanta. (T. 1232).
Jeffrey Lapp testified that Davis told him he did the shooting at Burger King, but that it was self-defense. (T. 1249-1252). Mr. Lapp noted that Davis’ street name was RAH, standing for “Rough As Hell.” (T. 1257).
Red Coles identified Davis as the perpetrator of Officer MacPhail’s murder, as did numerous other eyewitnesses, including Harriet Murray, Dorothy Ferrell, Daryl Collins, Antoine Williams, Steven Sanders and Larry Young.
Davis testified at trial. Davis admitted that he was present at the scene of the shooting on the night in question, but denied that he was involved in the shooting of Cooper or the victim or the assault on Larry Young.
The Trial (1989-1991)
Davis was found Davis guilty of one count of malice murder, one count of obstruction of a law enforcement officer, two counts of aggravated assault and one count of possession of firearm during the commission of a felony. The jury’s recommendation of a death sentence was returned on August 30, 1991. The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Davis’ convictions and death sentence on February 26, 1993. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 426 S.E.2d 844 (1993). The Georgia Supreme Court specifically found that the evidence presented at Davis’ trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, by stating that, “The evidence supports the conviction on all counts.” Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 7 (1993).
State Habeas Corpus Petition (1994-2001)
Davis, represented by the Georgia ResourceCenter, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Butts County, Georgia on March 15, 1994. An evidentiary hearing was held on December 16, 1996.
On September 9, 1997, the state habeas corpus court denied Davis state habeas corpus relief, including his claim that he was not the shooter. (State habeas corpus order of September 5, 1997, denying relief, page 41). The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of state habeas corpus relief on November 13, 2000. Davis v. Turpin, 273 Ga. 244, 539 S.E.2d 129 (2000).
Davis then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on October 1, 2001. Davis v. Turpin, 534 U.S. 842, 122 S.Ct. 100 (2001).
Federal Habeas Corpus Petition (2001-2004)
Davis, represented by Thomas Dunn, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, on December 14, 2001. On May 13, 2004, the district court denied Davis federal habeas corpus relief. In its order denying relief, the federal habeas corpus court denied Davis a federal evidentiary hearing stating that, “this Court finds that because the submitted affidavits are insufficient to raise doubts as to the constitutionality of the result at trial, there is no danger of a miscarriage of justice in declining to consider the claim.” (Federal habeas corpus order of 5/13/04, p. 25.).
11th Circuit Court of Appeals (2004-2006)
The case was orally argued before the Eleventh Circuit on September 7, 2005. On September 26, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion which affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief to Davis. Davis v. Terry, 465 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2006). In the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion, the Court noted, “In this case, Davis does not make a substantive claim of actual innocence. Rather, he argues that his constitutional claims of an unfair trial must be considered, even though they are otherwise procedurally defaulted, because he has made the requisite showing of actual innocence under Schlup.” Davis v. Terry, 465 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 2006). Reviewing each of Davis’s claims, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief by stating the following, “Having very carefully considered this record, we cannot say that the district court erred in concluding that Davis has not borne his burden to establish a viable claim that his trial was constitutionally unfair.” Davis v. Terry, 465 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2006). Davis filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on April 11, 2007, which was denied on June 25, 2007.
Original Execution Date Set (July 17, 2007)
On June 29, 2007, Chief Judge Perry Brannen, Jr. of the SuperiorCourtofChathamCounty filed an order setting the execution of Troy Anthony Davis for July 17, 2007. Davis filed a motion for stay of execution and an extraordinary motion for new trial. The trial court granted a stay, and then “exhaustively reviewed” each submitted affidavit “and considered in great detail the relevant trial testimony, if any, corresponding to each.” In denying the extraordinary motion for new trial, the trial court concluded that, “Defendant has failed to carry the burden on each and every submitted affidavit.”
On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court extensively reviewed each category of “affidavit testimony” on which Petitioner’s extraordinary motion relied, including: “recantations by trial witnesses,” “statements recounting alleged admissions of guilt by Coles,” “statements that Coles disposed of a handgun following the murder” and “alleged eyewitness accounts.” Davis v. State, 283 Ga. 438, 441-447, 660 S.E.2d 354 (2008). The Georgia Supreme Court held that, “Upon our careful review of Davis’s extraordinary motion for new trial and the trial record, we find that Davis failed to present such facts in his motion and, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion without a hearing.” Davis v. State, 283 Ga. at 448.
New Execution Date Set (September 23, 2008)
A new execution date was set for Troy Anthony Davis for September 23, 2008. On September 12, 2008, the Board of Pardons and Paroles denied commutation of death sentence and issued the following statement:
The Parole Board does not generally comment on death penalty cases it has considered for clemency. However, the Troy Davis case has received such extensive publicity that the Board has decided to make an exception.
Davis’ attorneys have argued that the Board should grant him clemency because a number of witnesses against Davis changed their earlier statements to the police and their testimony at the trial. Moreover, the attorneys have brought forward other people who now claim to have information that raises doubt as to the guilt of Davis.
Because of these claims, the Parole Board stopped Davis’ execution last year. The Board has now spent more than a year studying and considering this case.
As a part of its proceedings, the Board gave Davis’ attorneys an opportunity to present every witness they desired to support their allegation that there is doubt as to Davis’ guilt. The Board heard each of these witnesses and questioned them closely.
In addition, the Board has studied the voluminous trial transcript, the police investigation report and the initial statements of the witnesses. The Board has also had certain physical evidence retested and Davis interviewed.
After an exhaustive review of all available information regarding the Troy Davis case and after considering all possible reasons for granting clemency, the Board has determined that clemency is not warranted.
On September 23, 2008, the United States Supreme Court entered an order staying the execution pending disposition of Davis’s petition for writ of certiorari that had been previously filed on July 14, 2008. On October 14, 2008, the United States Supreme Court denied Davis’s petition for writ of certiorari, thus terminating the stay of execution. Davis v. Georgia, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 397 (2008).
New Execution Date Set (October 27, 2008)
An new execution date was set for October 27, 2008.
On October 22, 2008, Davis filed an application for leave to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition. Respondent filed a response in opposition on October 23, 2008. On October 24, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit granted a conditional stay of execution and directed both parties to submit briefs addressing specific issues. Both parties submitted briefs, and an oral argument before the Eleventh Circuit was held on December 9, 2008. On April 16, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit denied Davis’s application for leave to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition. In re: Davis, 565 F.3d 810 (11th Cir. 2009). The Eleventh Circuit held:
In short, we are constrained by the statutory requirements found in § 2244(b)(2)(B) to conclude that Davis has not even come close to making a prima facie showing that his Herrera claim relies on (i) facts that could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence, and that (ii), if proven, would “establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B) (2006). He, therefore, cannot file a successive petition.
In re Davis, 565 F.3d at 824.
Davis subsequently filed an original writ in the United States Supreme Court on May 19, 2009. On August 17, 2009, the United States Supreme Court transferred the case to the district court for that court to “receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of the trial establishes petitioner’s innocence.” In re Davis, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1 (2009).
Following briefing and discovery, a federal evidentiary hearing was conducted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, on June 23-24, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the United States District Court entered an order denying Davis’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In denying relief, the district court held:
Ultimately, while Mr. Davis's new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors. The vast majority of the evidence at trial remains intact, and the new evidence is largely not credible or lacking in probative value. After careful consideration, the Court finds that Mr. Davis has failed to make a showing of actual innocence that would entitle him to habeas relief in federal court.
In re: Davis, Case No. CV409-130.
Thereafter, Davis filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on January 21, 2011, which was denied on March 28, 2011.
[1]References to the transcript of Davis’ trial will be referred to as “T”, followed by the appropriate page number of the trial transcript.
http://law.ga.gov/press-releases/2011-09-07/execution-set-troy-anthony-davis-convicted-1989-murder-savannah-police
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the innocent.
By Ian Millhiser on Aug 17, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to die. Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who testified that Davis was the shooter. In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his conviction. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction:
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an innocent man to die. One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/08/17/56525/scalia-actual-innocence/
By Ian Millhiser on Aug 17, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to die. Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who testified that Davis was the shooter. In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his conviction. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction:
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an innocent man to die. One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/08/17/56525/scalia-actual-innocence/
In these cases, it is unclear that the persons executed were actually guilty.
It seems that The United States of America and Saudi Arabia are similar on a very basic level.
Of course, they do not have execution by drone down yet.
Thursday, Oct 20, 2011 05:21 AM CDT
The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son
Extreme secrecy, as usual, shrouds this act, but it underscores how often the U.S. uses violence around the world
By Glenn Greenwald
(updated below)
Two weeks after the U.S. killed American citizen Anwar Awlaki with a drone strike in Yemen — far from any battlefield and with no due process — it did the same to his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, ending the teenager’s life on Friday along with his 17-year-old cousin and seven other people. News reports, based on government sources, originally claimed that Awlaki’s son was 21 years old and an Al Qaeda fighter (needless to say, as Terrorist often means: “anyone killed by the U.S.”), but a birth certificate published by The Washington Post proved that he was born only 16 years ago in Denver. As The New Yorker‘s Amy Davidson wrote: “Looking at his birth certificate, one wonders what those assertions say either about the the quality of the government’s evidence — or the honesty of its claims — and about our own capacity for self-deception.” The boy’s grandfather said that he and his cousin were at a barbecue and preparing to eat when the U.S. attacked them by air and ended their lives. There are two points worth making about this:
(1) It is unknown whether the U.S. targeted the teenager or whether he was merely “collateral damage.” The reason that’s unknown is because the Obama administration refuses to tell us. Said the Post: “The officials would not discuss the attack in any detail, including who the target was.” So here we have yet again one of the most consequential acts a government can take — killing one of its own citizens, in this case a teenage boy — and the government refuses even to talk about what it did, why it did it, what its justification is, what evidence it possesses, or what principles it has embraced in general for such actions. Indeed, it refuses even to admit it did this, since it refuses even to admit that it has a drone program at all and that it is engaged in military action in Yemen. It’s just all shrouded in total secrecy.
Of course, the same thing happened with the killing of Awlaki himself. The Executive Branch decided it has the authority to target U.S. citizens for death without due process, but told nobody (until it was leaked) and refuses to identify the principles that guide these decisions. It then concluded in a secret legal memo that Awlaki specifically could be killed, but refuses to disclose what it ruled or in which principles this ruling was grounded. And although the Obama administration repeatedly accused Awlaki of having an “operational role” in Terrorist plots, it has — as Davidson put it — “so far kept the evidence for that to itself.”
...
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/
The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son
Extreme secrecy, as usual, shrouds this act, but it underscores how often the U.S. uses violence around the world
By Glenn Greenwald
(updated below)
Two weeks after the U.S. killed American citizen Anwar Awlaki with a drone strike in Yemen — far from any battlefield and with no due process — it did the same to his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, ending the teenager’s life on Friday along with his 17-year-old cousin and seven other people. News reports, based on government sources, originally claimed that Awlaki’s son was 21 years old and an Al Qaeda fighter (needless to say, as Terrorist often means: “anyone killed by the U.S.”), but a birth certificate published by The Washington Post proved that he was born only 16 years ago in Denver. As The New Yorker‘s Amy Davidson wrote: “Looking at his birth certificate, one wonders what those assertions say either about the the quality of the government’s evidence — or the honesty of its claims — and about our own capacity for self-deception.” The boy’s grandfather said that he and his cousin were at a barbecue and preparing to eat when the U.S. attacked them by air and ended their lives. There are two points worth making about this:
(1) It is unknown whether the U.S. targeted the teenager or whether he was merely “collateral damage.” The reason that’s unknown is because the Obama administration refuses to tell us. Said the Post: “The officials would not discuss the attack in any detail, including who the target was.” So here we have yet again one of the most consequential acts a government can take — killing one of its own citizens, in this case a teenage boy — and the government refuses even to talk about what it did, why it did it, what its justification is, what evidence it possesses, or what principles it has embraced in general for such actions. Indeed, it refuses even to admit it did this, since it refuses even to admit that it has a drone program at all and that it is engaged in military action in Yemen. It’s just all shrouded in total secrecy.
Of course, the same thing happened with the killing of Awlaki himself. The Executive Branch decided it has the authority to target U.S. citizens for death without due process, but told nobody (until it was leaked) and refuses to identify the principles that guide these decisions. It then concluded in a secret legal memo that Awlaki specifically could be killed, but refuses to disclose what it ruled or in which principles this ruling was grounded. And although the Obama administration repeatedly accused Awlaki of having an “operational role” in Terrorist plots, it has — as Davidson put it — “so far kept the evidence for that to itself.”
...
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/
The moral arc of the universe may be long and it may bend toward justice - but it cannot do so under the influence of a kill list.
