Supreme Court says Georgia man should get chance to prove innocence in court(Troy Davis)

[maddezmom]

Source: LATimes/AP

August 17, 2009 | 7:38 a.m.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says condemned inmate Troy Davis should get another chance to prove his innocence before the state of Georgia executes him.

The high court on Monday ordered a federal judge in Georgia to determine whether there is evidence that proves Davis did not kill a police officer in 1991.

Davis of Savannah, Ga., was condemned to death for that murder, but supporters have argued for a new trial after several witnesses took back their testimony. Davis' supporters include former President Jimmy Carter and Pope Benedict XVI.

Justice John Paul Stevens said that the risk of putting an innocent man to death "provides adequate justification" for an evidentiary hearing.



Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-georgia-execution,0,1623931.story

[JayMusgrove]

1. Good to hear!

It takes the Pope and Jimmy Carter to get these judges to move?

[nofurylike]

12. well, really, it took millions of people non-stop working for it. the pope

actually caused hostility from the gov there.

maybe you do not know of the HEROIC efforts of countless people working around the clock all over the world - please look into it, it is major history.


peace!

[msanthrope]

21. Will the pope excommunicate Catholics who vote for the Death Penalty?

I mean, I think it's great that the Pope took an interest, but I'm wondering of he's only willing to excommunicate over reproductive issues.

Excommunication parity might go a long way with the Catholic majority on SCOTUS.

[nofurylike]

32. well, it's back in georgia's courts now.... but i agree with your

point.

hypocrite pope.


peace!

[Birdiesmom]

2. Finally!

This has been a long time coming, folks. We have been writing letters, holding vigils now for over two years for Troy Davis. There is no physical evidence tying him to the crime, and the only witness who has not recanted his testimony is himself a suspect of having committed the murder.

Mr. Davis has been denied appeals again and again over technicalities, mostly because the courts don't want to admit that the court system is flawed enough to condemn an innocent man to death.

[yodermon]

3. "Justice John Paul Stevens said.."

was this a ruling by the full court?

[Orangepeel]

4. the court isn't is session, so I don't think it can be. n/t

[msanthrope]

18. we don't know how many total considered, and may have voted without

written opinion, yet.

From SCOTUS BLOG---

"Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Some of their arguments were answered in a separate opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The new member of the Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, took no part in the Court’s action.

The action was highly unusual, because Davis had filed what is called an original writ of habeas corpus — that is, a plea for his release, filed directly in the Supreme Court rather than in lower courts. Such claims rarely succeed. Justice Scalia noted in his dissent that the Court had not taken a similar step “in nearly 50 years.” The original writ, petition for certiorari, brief in opposition, and amici filings can be downloaded here.

The action also was unusual because the Court normally does not take actions of this significance during its summer recess. The case had been ready for the Justices’ consideration near the end of their past Term, in late June, but they simply took no action at that time. There was no word on why the Court took it up again at this time, rather than waiting until a new Term had opened.

The Court did not disclose how each of the Justices had voted, other than the dissents of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Presumably, however, an order of this kind would have required the approval of at least five votes. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens presumably voted for the order; their opinion said the case was the type was was exceptional enough to qualify for the action. It is unclear how Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., or Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., voted, if they did, but it appears that at least two of them would have had to agree to the step taken."


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

[beac]

27. "Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented"

No surprise there, Scalia is heartless and Thomas is brainless. I can't believe we have such human scum on the highest court in our country. :puke:

[Downwinder]

5. Prove innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Oh America, where have you gone?

[fjc]

6. "Prove" his innocence?

Sounds a bit bass ackwards to me.

[Gregorian]

8. It does. I'm puzzled by that as well.

It's the LA Times, too.

Obviously, this is what Troy wanted. Let them introduce the evidence that was withheld in the trial.

[unblock]

10. what should be the standard for new evidence?

i don't think it's right to order a new trial each time there's a shred of new evidence. at least there has to be some reason to think the new evidence might reasonably affect the outcome.

i don't know what the exact standard is (i'm sure the scalia standard is insane), but it sounds right that there should be an evidentiary hearing where a judge decides if a new trial is warranted, as it sounds like it is in this case.

[Gregorian]

25. Evidence that was omitted from the original trial.

And witnesses who recanted their testimony.

[unblock]

52. you can't order up a new trial anytime one iota of evidence changed

if they had dna evidence and 24 witnesses and one of them now forgets, the prosecution still has dna evidence and 23 witnesses.
on the other hand, if they're left with zero witnesses, then the merit of a new trial is obvious.

not sure exactly where the cutoff ought to be, but, well, somewhere in between.

[druidity33]

59. one little iota

of evidence can prove innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I'll bet you'd change your mind if you were in jail one a drop of blood at a crime scene could exonerate you.

:shrug:

[unblock]

60. that's exactly why there should be an evidentiary hearing

to determine if the difference in evidence could translate to a difference in outcome.

you can't have a new trial every time a shred of new evidence pops up, that's just not practical and is subject to abuse, you could have a whole series of retrials. i agree that the bias should be toward granting a new trial because i don't care for keeping innocents in prison even if they did have a fair trial, but there has to be some kind of test to make sure a new trial is appropriate.

[druidity33]

69. did you read the link?

They didn't grant a new trial. They've given a new hearing based on Habeas claims.

:shrug:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/08/17/troy-davis-gets-a-new-hearing/


Today, the Supreme Court took the somewhat unexpected and extremely rare step of ordering a new hearing in a District trial level court into new evidence and the guilt or innocence of Davis:

"The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing. Simply put, the case is sufficiently “exceptional” to warrant utilization of this Court’s Rule 20.4(a), 28 U. S. C. §2241(b), and our original habeas jurisdiction. See Byrnes v. Walker, 371 U. S. 937 (1962); Chaapel v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 869 (1962).
...
The District Court may conclude that §2254(d)(1) does not apply, or does not apply with the same rigidity, to an original habeas petition such as this. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U. S. 651, 663 (1996) (expressly leaving open the question whether and to what extent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) applies to original petitions). The court may also find it relevant to the AEDPA analysis that Davis is bringing an “actual innocence” claim."

[unblock]

70. yes, and i understand generally the way the law works in this area

i was responding to post(s) that seemed to propose that ANY new bit of evidence warrants a retrial.

scalia's view that a even victim coming back to life can't overturn a murder conviction is extreme on the other side.

something in the middle, which is what actually happens, seems quite appropriate.

[David__77]

16. That was the court's terminology is this case.

The order was to consider evidence that may "clearly establishes petitioner's innocence." That an even stronger statement than "clearly establishes reasonable doubt of petitioner's guilt."

[polmaven]

17. I think that is because

he has already been convicted, so the State has, by law, already "proved" his guilt. It would, I assume, now be up to him to prove his innocence.

I'm not a lawyer, but that would be the only way I could think of to explain it.

[Gregorian]

7. This is good news.

I was just about to check up on Troy's news. But when I saw the post title, I knew.

This has implications that go beyond Troy's case. Let's get some honesty in our judicial system. Not just prosecutions.


PS- God I despise Scalia. What a prick. To paraphrase- Well, everybody else thought he was guilty, so I do too!

[BumRushDaShow]

9. K&R

:applause: !!!

:kick:

[nofurylike]

11. K&R and GRATITUDE!!! eom

[msanthrope]

13. Catholic Majority on SCOTUS = Death Panel.

Remember, "actual innocence" does not mean you cannot be put to death.... (Herrera v. Collins) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins

I'm about to have a rant here about the dissent--how these fucked-up Catholics can cry over cells, but can't consider that a living man should not be put to death when 7 of the 9 witnesses recant.....

[polmaven]

19. Please don't blame

the Catholic Church. The official position, as I understand it, (I'm not Catholic) is that they are opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances. It is unfair to put the blame on the Jusices' Catholicism, just on their A**holeism. .

[msanthrope]

23. Why shouldn't I blame the Catholic Church? Think their religious

affiliation has nothing to do with the fact that these asswipes are pro-death penalty and anti-choice, yet claim to be pro-life?

Their church excommunicates those who have abortions, but not those who support, vote for, or carry out executions. So don't tell me what their 'official' stance is....when their actual stance is apparent.

As for the 'official' church position, well I hear they are against pedophilia, too.....

edited for spelling.

[polmaven]

30. The Pope himself has expressed

the opinion that the execution should not go forward. Scalia is not basing his opinion of the Catholic Church Doctrine, and Thomas bases his opinions on Scalia Doctrine.........That's why.

Read the posts, do some critical thinking, and maybe you can wean yourself from your knee jerk religion hating reactions.

[msanthrope]

44. But has the pope put his money where his mouth is?

Sure, it's great to have excommunication for reproductive rights, but has the pope expressed a SANCTION for Catholics who defy him and kill others? Expressed that is is a mortal sin for Catholics to participate in the state-sanctioned machinery of death?

No. 'Cause in the Catholic Church it is still okay to place cells above people....

I'm just asking for parity here.

[WriteDown]

22. You may want to rethink that..

First 1993 has a different court than 2009 and 2nd there is a lot of evidence that he was guilty.

[msanthrope]

24. I wasn't speaking of 1993. I was speaking of now. You have

5 Catholics, not one of whom spoke against Herrera today...not one word, not one line.

And the two Catholics who bothered to write?

Scalia used the word 'loser'.

[WriteDown]

26. And why should they?

This is about Troy.

[msanthrope]

28. Because Herrera is one of the obstacles to his claims ever

being heard on the merits.

He's assserting "actual innocence" and is asking for the right to prove it. Since you claim to know the case, then you know the importance of Herrera.

[WriteDown]

29. There was A LOT of evidence against Herrera....

so I am not sure what you are trying to say. Troy may have a better case considering he is trying to show that he did not have a fair trial.

[msanthrope]

42. What I am saying is that Troy Davis is attempting to establish

'actual innocence'. Herrera makes that nigh-on impossible to assert that as a basis for habeas corpus. He's got an uphill fight.

[WriteDown]

45. Herrera was denied the ability to reintroduce

evidence because there was no credible evidence that he did not have a fair trial. Troy seems to have a better case.

[msanthrope]

49. That doesn't matter.

I wish I could tell you that Troy Davis having a better case (i.e. more credible evidence) means that he will succeed where Herrera did not.

But Herrera does not turn on the credibility of evidence. It turns on procedure. As in, absent a constitutional violation in his trial, there may be no relief for Troy Davis in habeas.

It is entirely possible that Troy Davis, or any other defendant, could produce video proving innocence. But as long as a court finds that Troy Davis was given a fair trial --at the time-- it's still legal to execute him.

Horrifying? Yes.

I'd like to think that the Catholic five-man majority on SCOTUS would do the right thing, but have they ever?

[WriteDown]

51. There was tons of evidence against Herrera and a good deal..

against Troy. He may not be innocent. I think the most damning evidence against Herrera was that nothing was claimed until AFTER his brother died despite having family members saying they'd been told years ago.

[KamaAina]

39. Um, Sotomayor's Catholic

there goes that brilliant theory. :sarcasm:

[msanthrope]

47. Do you not understand the word, "majority"? Or the fact that she wasn't part of this case?

In a nine member court, five is a majority.

On the current Scotus you have a five-member Catholic majority. When Sotomayor sits, you will still have a five-member Catholic majority, which Sotomayor may, or may not join.

[Psephos]

55. Your position fits the description of bigotry well.

The world would run better if we stopped grouping people together and judging them based on their church or skin color or nationality.

[nofurylike]

14. from scotusblog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/


Hearing on innocence claim ordered
Monday, August 17th, 2009 10:29 am | Lyle Denniston | Comments Off | Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Share on LinkedIn • Digg This!

The Supreme Court, over two Justices’ dissents, on Monday ordered a federal judge in Georgia to consider and rule on the claim of innocence in the murder case against Troy Anthony Davis (In re Davis, 08-1443) The Court told the District Court to “receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes innocence.”

-snip-

The action was highly unusual, because Davis had filed what is called an original writ of habeas corpus — that is, a plea for his release, filed directly in the Supreme Court rather than in lower courts. Such claims rarely succeed. Justice Scalia noted in his dissent that the Court had not taken a similar step “in nearly 50 years.” The original writ, petition for certiorari, brief in opposition, and amici filings can be downloaded here.

The action also was unusual because the Court normally does not take actions of this significance during its summer recess. The case had been ready for the Justices’ consideration near the end of their past Term, in late June, but they simply took no action at that time. There was no word on why the Court took it up again at this time, rather than waiting until a new Term had opened.

-snip-

***

some judge opinions:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/court-order-Davis.pdf

-snip-

The motion of NAACP, et al. for leave to file a brief as
amici curiae is granted. The motion of Bob Barr, et al. for
leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The peti-
tion for a writ of habeas corpus is transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia for hearing and determination. The District
Court should receive testimony and make findings of fact
as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained
at the time of trial clearly establishes petitioner’s inno-
cence. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR took no part in the considera-
tion or decision of these motions and this petition.

-snip-

***

[Gregorian]

20. Interesting. If I had to guess, I'd say there must be some merit to Troy's plea.

Thanks so much for posting this.

I know we both realize the situation throughout the country's jails, as there must be many more who may, or are, innocent, languishing their lives away behind bars. Shame on my country. I can only feel shame. I would rather let ten guilty men walk free than to jail an innocent one.

[nofurylike]

31. hey Gregorian! thank you for replying. you always show up!! yes,

there are many more cases that need this focus. urgently!!!

i share that shame. and yes, i agree, "I would rather let ten guilty men walk free than to jail(/execute!!) an innocent one."


more on all this, soon. actions lining up......

keep on, my friend! i will too!


peace and solidarity!

[nofurylike]

15. "Justices grant Georgia inmate's request to delay execution"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/17/georgia.scotus.troy.davis/

[nofurylike]

33. Amnesty International USA Press Release

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGUSA20090817001&lang=e

Amnesty International USA Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, August 17, 2009

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL WELCOMES SUPREME COURT ORDER
MANDATING EVIDENTIARY HEARING FOR TROY ANTHONY DAVIS
Contact: Wende Gozan at 212-633-4247, [email protected], or Laura Moye at 404-452-8920, [email protected].

(Washington, D.C.) – Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) today welcomed a U.S. Supreme Court order mandating a new evidentiary hearing for death-row inmate Troy Anthony Davis. In a 6-2 ruling, the nation's highest court decided that Davis should have another chance to prove his innocence before the state of Georgia puts him to death.

"We are grateful that the nation's highest court has seen the wisdom in granting a new evidentiary hearing to Troy Davis," said Laura Moye, director of AIUSA's Death Penalty Abolition Campaign. "For years Amnesty International has maintained that this man’s compelling case of innocence needs to see the light of day. Finally it will. Given the lack of hard evidence tying Davis to Officer MacPhail's murder, it would be nothing short of unconscionable to put him to death as a means of conveniently tying up loose ends. Finally there is an opportunity for justice to truly be served."

According to SCOTUSblog, the Court told the District Court to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes innocence."

Davis was convicted in 1991 of killing Savannah police officer Mark Allen MacPhail. Authorities failed to produce a murder weapon or physical evidence tying Davis to the crime. Seven of the nine original state witnesses have recanted or changed their initial testimonies in sworn affidavits. One of the remaining witnesses is alleged to be the actual perpetrator. Since the launch of its February 2007 report, "Where Is the Justice for Me?", Amnesty International has campaigned intensively for a new evidentiary hearing or trial, as well as clemency for Davis, collecting hundreds of thousands of clemency petition signatures and letters from prominent individuals around the world.

-snip-

***

[nofurylike]

34. hundreds of new articles just out :

http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Troy+Davis&cf=all&scoring=d

[nofurylike]

35. from Benjamin Todd Jealous, NAACP President and CEO:

Dear xxxxx,

We won! Thanks to you and 35,000 other NAACP members and supporters, the U.S. Supreme Court today announced that Troy Davis will finally get his day in court…and a chance to prove his innocence.

The court ordered a federal judge in Georgia to review, what we and many others believe is, the overwhelming evidence of Troy's innocence. Troy was sentenced to death for the 1991 killing of a police officer in Savannah, Georgia.

As you know, the NAACP and other organizations have been fighting to save the life of Troy Davis. There was no physical evidence tying him to the crime and seven out of nine witnesses have recanted or contradicted their testimony. And today, finally, the Supreme Court gave Troy a chance to present this evidence and prove his innocence! That's a victory for Troy and his family — and for all of us.

Thank you for all your work to make this happen. I'll be in touch again soon to let you know how else you can help.

Sincerely,
Benjamin Todd Jealous
President and CEO
NAACP


***

wow......

[nofurylike]

36. btw, THANK ****YOU****, Benjamin Todd Jealous!!!! eom

[EFerrari]

46. I can't believe it. We did it!

:grouphug:

[nofurylike]

48. doesn't it blow your mind?! me too!! will you see the video of the DA, below,

and put your thoughts on that. people are hearing it many different ways. all of us trying to read the DA's mind behind the statement....

THANK YOU, EFerrari!!! for ALL you have done!!! do!!!


(including keeping me from succumbing to despair)


peace and solidarity, always!!

[nofurylike]

50. o, and this:

:hi:


and



:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:



and

:grouphug:


and...

wow


:cry:

[nofurylike]

37. the as-ever outstanding Atlanta Progressive News:

US Supreme Court Orders New Hearing for Troy Davis
By Jonathan Springston, Senior Staff Writer, The Atlanta Progressive News (August 17, 2009)

http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0495.html

-snip-

"Transferring this case to a court that has no power to grant relief is strange enough," he (Scalia) added. "It becomes stranger still when one realizes that the allegedly new evidence we shunt off to be examined by the District Court has already been considered (and rejected) multiple times."

However, in APN's analysis of the legal history of this case, this news service found that no court actually considered the evidence in the context of innocence claims, even though it was presented to them.

-snip-

***

*emphasis mine

[ProudDad]

38. Finally, some good news ...

The Grim Reaper's lackeys in the State of Georgia are deprived of another victim...

[SeattleGirl]

40. This is great news!

I am so happy that Mr. Davis will have a chance to finally be heard.

[nofurylike]

41. DA Larry Chisolm's statement on SCOTUS ruling:

http://www2.wsav.com/sav/news/crime/davis/article/da_larry_chisolm_statement_on_supreme_court_ruling_in_troy_davis_case/37516/


DA Larry Chisolm Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Troy Davis Case
By TUQUYEN MACH
August 17, 2009

-snip-

“In a very unusual move, the United States Supreme Court has transferred the petition of Troy Anthony Davis to the local federal court.

The Supreme Court further instructed the local federal court to receive testimony and make findings of fact on whether there is evidence that was not presented at the trial 19 years ago, that clearly establishes that Troy Anthony Davis is innocent.

The citizens of Chatham County should be clear in their understanding that this is not a new trial of the case before a jury. The hearing of this case before a federal judge affords Troy Davis the opportunity to have any evidence that supports his innocence claim that was found after the trial to be heard all at one time in court. As a result, the case could continue to execution, be sent back for re-trial or appealed once again. We do not expect a quick outcome in any event.

The District Attorneys Office has no public comment on the substance of the Courts ruling or the facts of this case until the federal courts have concluded their hearings and appeals. The State will be represented in the local federal hearing by Georgia State Attorney General Thurbert Baker and his office.“

***


this is not an exact transcript of the video, but covers essentials. i hope you can see the video. i had to go to a neighbor to see it! but i HAD to see it!!



peace

[EFerrari]

43. Thank you!

:woohoo:

[groundloop]

53. Georgia death row inmate gets new hearing

Source: MSNBC

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a new hearing for death row inmate Troy Davis, whose supporters say is innocent and should be spared from execution for killing a police officer 20 years ago.

Davis has spent 18 years on death row for the 1989 slaying of Savannah, Ga., police officer Mark MacPhail. Davis' attorneys insist that he is innocent and deserves a new trial because several witnesses at his trial have recanted their testimony.

The high court ordered a federal judge in Georgia to determine whether there is evidence "that could not have been obtained at the time of trial (that) clearly establishes petitioner's innocence."..........

"The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing," said Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer concurred with Stevens..........

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision to order an evidentiary hearing, with Scalia saying that "every judicial and executive body that has examined petitioner's claim has been unpersuaded."



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32448458/

[EFerrari]

54. Kick

[daughter of liberty2]

56. Sweet!

:toast:


:applause:

[nofurylike]

57. kick. just had to come back and read it all. still AMAZED!!!! eom

[nofurylike]

58. SCOTUS didn't say "should." they *ordered*. OP says it, but latimes

messed up on that.


peace

[handmade34]

61. Condemned Ga. man should get hearing

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON — In an exceptional move Monday, the Supreme Court ordered a U.S. court in Georgia to hear new testimony in the case of Troy Davis, who was sentenced to die for killing a police officer and whose appeal has drawn international attention

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/supremecourtopinions/2009-08-17-georgia-execution_N.htm

---

This is excellent news!

[handmade34]

62. I feel nothing but contempt for

Scalia and Thomas right now. ..."fool's errand" you say. Possibly saving an innocent man from death??

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas: “The court proceeds down this path even though every judicial and executive body that has examined petitioner’s stale claim of innocence has been unpersuaded, and (to make matters worse) even though it would be impossible for the District Court to grant relief. ... Today, without explanation and without any meaningful guidance, this court sends the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on a fool’s errand.”

[Recursion]

63. Umm.. he's right about a "fool's errand". Read the opinion.

The court they are remanding the case to doesn't have the power to stop his execution.

[66 dmhlt]

65. I read the Court's opinion - and I believe you're wrong.

First, I think you're basing your comment on Scalia's dissent - not the Court's opinion.

Here is the Court's opinion:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/court-order-Davis.pdf

This is Scalia's dissent:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Scalia-opin-Davis.pdf

The Court's opinion, written by Justice Stevens, major points:
1.) Felt the District judge may well have authority to act, finding that AEDPA’s (Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act) limits do not apply to “original” habeas writs of the kind the Justices acted on
2.) Or do not apply to a habeas claim of “actual innocence”
3.) There may be an argument that AEDPA’s habeas limits are unconstitutional if they barred court review of such a claim
4.) Finally, it can be argued that it would be a federal constitutional violation to execute an innocent person

[Recursion]

66. Well, I agree with Scalia's reasoning here, which is why I am anti-death penalty.

I think Scalia is correctly interpreting bad laws. I do not think it is a Constitutional violation to execute a person who is factually innocent if he has been found legally guilty.

[Newshues]

68. 3 is the one that will prevail

basically AEDPA requires both new evidence AND a constitutional violation in this case as the case is today. Meaning that if an innocent person is convicted and there was no constitutional claim he'd be put to death. That's absurd.

Scalia had several points in his dissent. I think his most compelling is that SCOTUS should have just taken the case itself rather than send it to a lower court where the ability to do anything is in question. Certainly more guidance could have been given as just what it is that SCOTUS is trying to get the lower court to do.

There are several avenues to determine a constitutional question in this case. SCOTUS could have, and I believe should have, taken the case, addressed a constitutional claim and then remanded back to state court.

As it is now, the district court will do something, someone will appeal, and we'll be back before SCOTUS eventually answering a constitutional question that SCOTUS could answer today.

I'm with the courts that have heard this case. The evidence of innocence is not compelling enough to declare this man innocent over an otherwise fair trial. I do believe there is enough of a question to overturn the death penalty but that isn't something the courts can do directly. This is the type of case where the executive can, and should, step in and alter the sentence to something like life with option of parole as a minimum.

We weren't there. We don't know who shot the officer. We do know that two people are fingering each other as the shooter and that both, at one time or another, are reported by 3rd parties to have claimed to have fired the shots. Barring one of those two claiming in court to have been the shooter we have to assume that the jury got it right as to who pulled the trigger. We absolutely can have an opinion otherwise. Given the circumstances of the case I do not think the death penalty should have been sought in the first place and that executing this man does carry a quantifiable risk of putting an innocent man to death.

[WillParkinson]

64. This part concerns me...

"Anneliese MacPhail, the officer's mother, told the Associated Press she was "in shock" and worries the Supreme Court's action will cause further pain for a family seeking closure."

So if a man is executed and later found to be innocent, what kind of closure did your family get?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

67. they get to watch a black man die?

any will do, or so it seems in many cases.