NYT: 1986 Case Could Aid Appeals Along Death Row (Stop Judicial Murder)

[autorank]

This is one of the great questions I have as a citizen. My court system says that once convicted, the barrier to successful appeal is extremely high if you can prove your innocence. Why? I can't tell you but the courts have dictated that there are time periods by which new evidence must be submitted and the hurdle to jump is much higher for innocence. In this case, Citizen House was convicted for murder. As it turns out, DNA evidence of semen on the victim is from the husband, not the convicted man blowing the prosecution case out of the water.

Lets say the Supreme Court rule on evidence is 90 days. Lets say on day 91, a video tape is found of the murder showing that someone other than the convicted citizen did the killing. Will the court reject this. If so, that's murder because the "rule" sends an innocent man to his death. Lets say they accept the evidence, is this any great crime against humanity? Why not go to real lengths to make sure that all relevant evidence is considered? Is the evidence any less valid because it comes in on one date rather than another? Of course not!

The judges who enforce these rules and toss out evidence of innocence are committing judicial murder, which is really just plain old murder in black robes. Shame on them for their arrogance and shame on us for tolerating this barbarity.

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/politics/politicsspecial1/12scotus.html

A 1986 Case Could Aid Appeals Along Death Row

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
January 12, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 - An argument before the Supreme Court in a 20-year-old murder case suggested on Wednesday that the court might be willing to open the door a bit wider to death row inmates seeking access to federal court to present plausible but belated claims of innocence.

It was a gritty argument with an unusually intense focus on the evidence that a Tennessee jury considered in convicting Paul G. House of the murder of a neighbor, Carolyn Muncey. Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer were particularly steeped in the details and were deeply engaged on opposite sides of the case, debating it back and forth almost to the exclusion of the lawyers standing before them.

Mr. House has always maintained his innocence, and in 2004 he came within one vote of persuading a federal appeals court to reopen his case. The debate on the appeals court was over whether recently developed scientific evidence had cast enough doubt on the basis of his conviction to overcome the very high bar that the Supreme Court has set for federal courts to hear new claims that were not presented in the initial round of appeals.

[EST]

1. That vicious killer, Scalia, is on record as pronouncing

that "mere" factual innocence was not a good reason to throw away a perfectly good trial. Those throwbacks (r/w crooks) are murderers, as well as liars.
republican=liar

[autorank]

2. These people are morally bankrupt. That they have the ability to

say this without an ambulance showing up is just amazing.

[pinerow]

3. What the hell is "factual" evidence....leave it toScalia to

torture the meaning of a word...sheesh.