“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached”

[SoCalDem]

so sayeth Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice.

other things he has said that should be noted.
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/mere_factual_innocence_is_no_reason_not_to_carry/186036.html



Posted this in case some had not heard of this ridiculous statement

[alarimer]

1. If factual innocence does not render a verdict improper, then I do not know what will.

It seems completely illogical to me.

[roguevalley]

22. what a fucked place this is. Unbelievable. fat tony should get a

chance at it himself.

[uhnope]

88. FAKE QUOTE! Don't be misinformed. He didn't say it.

This is what's wrong with internet mentality. How many people will run around with a shiny new completely wrong factoid in their brain to spout and misinform others

http://news.lawreader.com/?p=1958

Correction: see the following follow up re: this Scalia attributed quote:
Barry Miller: Widely published Scalia quote re: “innocence” is inaccurate. We have to agree. Scalia didn’t really ever say: “Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.”

What Scalia did say was:
“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”

[provis99]

92. so the real quote says exactly the same thing.

[SemperEadem]

94. well there should be

Our constitution also doesn't say that killing innocent people is ok, either.

Quite frankly, I see no difference in what has been attributed and what was actually said. Consider the source.

[Uncle Joe]

100. Well the 8th Amendment and the 7th Amendment seem at odds

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted."

If punishing; someone when overwhelming facts of innocence central to the conviction are brought forth isn't cruel punishment, then what is?

Even if the quote is not exact, using Scalia's logic and sense of justice would the results be any different?

[sulphurdunn]

102. "The Only Law West of the Pecos"

These quotes are a rhetorical distinction without a difference.`Judge Roy Bean always made sure the accused, guilty or innocent, had a fair trial before being hanged too. Scalia has a better legal pedigree but is cut from the same cloth.

[sabrina 1]

112. He was claiming that by sending the case to a lower court

for a ruling, his colleagues, all 7 who agreed with that solution, were wrong because it was not within the court's purvue to be able to adjudicate the matter. I agree he was not saying that having evidence of innocence wasn't important, just that the courts, the SC and the lower court could not overturn a verdict or, there was no precedent for it. He said that the SC may as well have taken the case themselves then, since the lower court had no record of overturning a verdict either. I guess it would set a new precedent had the SC decided to do that. I wish they had.

I do agree this quote has been taken out of context. Still, I'm not sure he's right as I have not read the opinions of the other seven judges.

[ixion]

2. Which translated means: It's okay to kill as long as you do your paperwork.

Some justice we got going. :argh:

[guitar man]

55. to expand on that just a bit

"It's okay to kill a poor black man as long as you do your paperwork."

;)

[duhneece]

69. The Nazis made it clear that they wanted 'paperwork legal' too nt

[Chemisse]

3. That is stunning!

Now there's a man who has more respect for the legal process than for human life itself.

[supernova]

4. IOW, the process must be protected at all costs.

:puke:

[Ship of Fools]

5. words fail me ...

[jberryhill]

6. 18 USC 115

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000115----000-.html

§ 115. Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member

(a)
(1) Whoever—

(A) assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or attempts or conspires to kidnap or murder, or threatens to assault, kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under section 1114 of this title; or

(B) threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section,
with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

[LooseWilly]

26. An oddly intriguing response...

:toast:

[jberryhill]

31. "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to"

[Shandris]

7. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that the Constitution...

...and it's attachment, the Corpus Juris Secundum, is a RELIC that, while novel in its' approach, should merely be viewed as an Alpha Release or (at best) a Beta test. It should not be compared to a fully stable, working platform because it's not. See, the problem is this: BY THE LAW (and therein is the key), Scalia is right. It's not his job to pass judgements on the validity of the law (unless the case in question is about that), but to make sure that the judgement was rendered correctly UNDER THE LETTER OF THE LAW. At no point whatsoever do things like innocence, framing, or anything else actually matter. This is a concept that gets a LOT of people in trouble with the law -- they think the law is supposed to make sense, or be fair, and so on. And in point, I agree with them COMPLETELY. BUT...that's not how its written, and that's not how the Constitution enforces it. Without an appeal to fundamental concepts enshrined in the Constitution and handled on a case by case basis (imo, the reason they call judges JUDGES), there is no protection from this kind of ruling.

Every law should have a statement of intent that, in the cases of consideration like this, should be debated in lieu of the actual letter of the law. Yes, it's a nebulous proposal, but without it you have these kinds of situations -- where it is LEGALLY FINE to KILL a man for something that AT THE VERY LEAST there is considerable doubt he DID NOT DO...and there's nothing to be done about it. "Whoops, my lawyer made a filing error, time for me to die."

Constitutional Convention. It's time.

[coalition_unwilling]

35. Yowzer. So does the law say that it's OK for the state to

execute someone in the face of "mere factual innocence"?????

[Recursion]

52. Yes, it very clearly says that

A conviction, once reached, is very difficult to overturn, particularly since someone would still have to weigh and judge the evidence in question. Remember, one empaneled jury already found the person guilty. Another empaneled jury might reach a different conclusion, but that does not on its face mean the first jury's opinion should be respected less than the second jury's opinion.

[msanthrope]

61. Yes. That's exactly what it says, nt

[DrunkenBoat]

67. The law nowhere says such a thing, despite the comments below. There are practices

& court decisions which could lead one to infer such, but of course, stated explicitly, it's abhorrent to democracy & the Constitution.

As other justices have stated.

And if the right not to be executed for nothing can't be inferred from the Constitution, I'm not sure what can. Certainly not the "right" to abortion or the "right" to corporate personhood.

[coalition_unwilling]

75. Thank you. Shandris' attempt to explain the tortured legal

basis for Scalia's stance left me aghast (not at Shandris but at Scalia and his coterie).

I'm not an attorney, merely an interested layperson. But my understanding is that a claim of innocence, even when backed by solid proof, is no longer sufficient to necessitate a new habeas proceeding any longer, thanks to Yahoos like Scalia and the bullshit about never-ending appeals, the result of which has been that exacting justice quickly has taken precedence over making sure to get it right before exacting justice.

[Recursion]

77. How can evidence that has never been examined by a court be "solid proof" of anything? (nt)

[corpseratemedia]

8. even though it is THE reason not to carry out a death sentence;

because a person is INNOCENT.

[Betty]

9. "mere" factual innocence

Nice how he devalues the most important thing about a wrongful conviction. If only he were the one falsely accused of a capital crime. Love to see him squirm out of that.

[maxrandb]

10. Na, I'm sure if he was in that situation

Fat Tony would "off" himself.

[phantom power]

11. well, you know, they create their own reality...

or something.

[coalition_unwilling]

37. While watching out for 'unknown unknowns' - n/t

[me b zola]

24. The use of the word "mere" caught my attention too

...as though if there were something to accompany innocence, you know, like a fat bank account then that would be grounds for consideration.

[EFerrari]

12. He's insane AND corrupt.

[SoCalDem]

13. His firstborn might have some second thoughts too

“In a big family the first child is kind of like the first pancake. If it's not perfect, that's okay, there are a lot more coming along.”

Antonin Scalia quotes (American Supreme court justice , b.1936)

[EFerrari]

18. Omg, a scratch kid!

:)

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Didn't they all vote to kill Davis?

I mean, how different are they from Scalia?

[Nye Bevan]

19. I miss Harry Blackmun

who refused to "tinker with the machinery of death".

[SoCalDem]

20. 4 votes were needed to "take" the case under consideration

it would have taken 5 to actually postpone it (according to what I heard last night)..but since 4 could not be achieved, they never needed to vote. Apparently the names of the actual votes are never released, so we can assume that either someone abstained, or the votes we thought were liberal, we not all that:(

[DrunkenBoat]

48. court declined to review. i think there were two opposed.

[totodeinhere]

96. Where did you get that two were opposed? I haven't read that anywhere.

Do you have a link? Thanks.

[totodeinhere]

97. Sadly no different in this case. I am especially disappointed in the Obama appointees.

At the very least they could have published a dissent but they were silent.

[Nye Bevan]

15. People in the future will look back on this

like we look back at Dred Scott.

History will not be kind to this guy.

[grasswire]

16. this is not the first time I've encountered this concept.

I had a long correspondence in the 1980s with a prisoner in Texas who could not be released on parole because he had been found by a court to have a "colorable showing of factual innocence" in his case, and Texas parole regulations stipulate that only guilty parties may be paroled. It was a technicality, but used to deny liberty.

[ProgressoDem]

17. I hate to be that guy.

But this is ridiculous, because it's not true. He did say:

“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”

Which is true. It's immoral, but it's correct. There SHOULD be a mechanism, but there is not.

[ThoughtCriminal]

21. I'm pretty sure Scalia is wrong

and there there is ample precedent for granting a new trial when there is mew evidence that due process was not observed.

It is no less absurd, illogical and well... stupid to nor consider newly found evidence. Often Scalia's legal arguments are no better than Palin's word salad, he down't even bother to make sense because he does not have to.

[nomb]

36. He's right, he was addressing whether to grant a new trial to everyone with an affidavit, see here

"... disfavored because the affiants’ statements are obtained without the benefit of cross-examination and an opportunity to make credibility determinations."

[Recursion]

53. You're talking about a separate issue

and there there is ample precedent for granting a new trial when there is (n)ew evidence that due process was not observed.

And that's not what he's talking about. He's saying if the defendant did receive a proper trial with due process, and under the standards of evidence in that trial was found guilty, the subsequent discovery of new evidence does not as a matter of law entitle the convicted person to a new trial, though it can clearly influence an appeal or pardon process.

[coalition_unwilling]

38. Um, the OP posted a link to the original source quote out of

Fat Tony's mouth itself.

Are you taking issue with the credibility of the source material? Or merely asserting that Fat Tony did not say what the OP and his citation allege?

[nomb]

40. The quote is false. And thank god that it is. Fuck Scalia, I'm defending my own sanity here

http://news.lawreader.com/?p=1970

[msanthrope]

64. Not quite--Herrera v Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404 (1993) (Rehnquist, C.J.)

"a claim of `actual innocence' is not itself a constitutional claim..."

[dpibel]

68. Well, how about this one?

I realize that it doesn't change the big "gotcha" on the "mere innocence" misquote. But it seems a pretty forthright statement:

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.

http://mpomy.com/Davis.pdf

Now you can parse that to your heart's content. You can excuse Fat Tony because he's only saying what the precedent is, not what he believes.

But there's not much way around the fact that he's expressing support for the proposition that that there's nothing unconstitutional about executing a person who is convicted but later able to prove actual innocence.

[Recursion]

70. What part of the Constitution forbids that in your opinion?

Courts are rather agnostic to the question of "what actually happened" (here is a long-form attempt at why). If a defendant received due process and was found guilty, I'm not sure what Constitutional claims newly-discovered (and therefore unexamined) evidence offer.

[dpibel]

76. There's more than process to the Constitution

I believe you're a bit stuck on the procedural side as is, presumably, Mr. Justice Scalia.

I would respectfully submit that putting a factually innocent person to death would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Which is, I believe, prohibited by the Constitution.

The presumption in the Scalia quote is that there has been an evidentiary habeas corpus hearing in which the defendant proved innocence. He is, therefore, basing his statement on newly-discovered and examined evidence.

But since the defendant got procedural due process at trial, no matter.

Because we all know that the Constitution doesn't guarantee substantive due process.

[Recursion]

78. I don't know that executing factually innocent people is all that unusual

So unfortunately it doesn't fall under the "cruel and unusual" rubric.

The presumption in the Scalia quote is that there has been an evidentiary habeas corpus hearing in which the defendant proved innocence.

No, it was on a case where an evidentiary hearing was denied on *persuasive* (to everyone who saw it) evidence of innocence.

[dpibel]

83. You actually said that?

I suppose you'd also argue that, since the prohibition is against "cruel and unusual" punishment, it's fine to have cruel punishment, and it's cool to have unusual punishment, so long as they are not coincident.

IOW, you're just playing here.


As for this:

The presumption in the Scalia quote is that there has been an evidentiary habeas corpus hearing in which the defendant proved innocence.

No, it was on a case where an evidentiary hearing was denied on *persuasive* (to everyone who saw it) evidence of innocence.


You are addressing the substance of In re Davis.

But the quote from Tony was not Davis-specific. It was a general, broad-form hypothetical.

But you knew that, and, as I said, you're just playing games now.

[Recursion]

103. The case was Harrera, not Davis

And I believe the binding sense of "and" in "cruel and unusual" is actually in case law

[dpibel]

104. The case I quoted is Davis

I gave you a link and everything.

[Recursion]

106. Umm... right... Davis was an application of Herrera

I feel like I'm missing your point here; in Davis he paraphrases himself in Herrera. And in both cases an evidentiary hearing was denied.

[dpibel]

108. Obtuse by choice?

You may be being intentionally obtuse. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since you're just here to play, and assume that you are.

But I hold open the possibility that you're being unintentionally obtuse, and am rather leaning that way.

If you were to read starting from the Davis quote I supplied, you would discover that I've already addressed the distinction you are trying to make.

[Recursion]

109. Sorry, can you just tell me your point?

Between Herrera and Davis we have two essentially similar quotes by Scalia to the effect that Federal habeas relief isn't available based on claims of evidence discovered after conviction. What am I saying that you disagree with?

[dpibel]

110. OK. I choose unintentionally obtuse

There is no possible credible reading of the material I quoted in #68 that comports with what you just said.

[Recursion]

111. What on earth are you saying? Can you just state it in plain English?

Scalia says new exculpatory evidence does not initiate an automatic habeas claim if the original trial was not procedurally defective. You quoted him to that effect in Davis in post 68, right? I'm agreeing that's what he said, and that it's substantially identical to what he said in Harrera. What do you think I'm disagreeing with you about here?

[ProgressoDem]

42. It's a made-up quote.

The citation is wrong. It's poorly paraphrased from the quote I posted. It doesn't do us a service to put words in people's mouths, even if they happen to be d-bags like Scalia.

[msanthrope]

63. "Actual Innocence is not itself a constitutional claim..."

Herrera v Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404 (1993) (Rehnquist, C.J.)

[kestrel91316]

93. He said it at a Pew Forum in 2002. The Pew site no longer has that forum's transcripts

on line because it wound up published in a book.

Your statement is false. He said it, he owns it, he is proud to see himself quoted on this year after year.

If it's false, show me where he denies he said it.

[DrunkenBoat]

49. It's not true. He's a liar.

Without conducting a substantive analysis of any of the seven recanted testimony affidavits, the trial court ruled “ post-trial declaration by a State witness that his former testimony is false is not cause for a new trial. Pryor v. State, 179 Ga. App. 293, 294 (1986)(cit. omitted); Brown v. State, 209 Ga. App. 314, 316 (1993); Drake v. State, 248 Ga. 891, 894 (1982).”

The categorical rejection of this class of evidence is wrong as a matter of law. A procedure, upon which Georgia courts have relied, exists to examine the content of such evidence. In fact, in two of the three cases incorrectly relied upon by the superior court as precedent for refusing to consider this recantation evidence, the courts utilized this procedure—an evidentiary hearing. 2

The trial court erred by adhering to the conclusions of sister courts without engaging in a reasoned analysis of the logic that supported those conclusions. The cases upon which the lower court based its judgment do not support a summary ruling in a case with seven recanting witnesses, where no substantive analysis of the content of the recantation evidence has yet occurred.

In both Brown and Drake, two of the three cases upon which the trial court relied, the court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial only after conducting evidentiary hearings, and after evaluating the content of the recantations. See Brown, 209 Ga. App. at 316; Drake 248 Ga. at 893.

http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/assets/documents/news/Final%20Ogletree%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

[Recursion]

56. Does either Brown or Drake require an evidentiary hearing?

As I'm reading that, the court may conduct an evidentiary hearing on a recantation or any other evidence discovered post-conviction; how I'm reading Scalia's point (and I have to say I agree with him on this) is that it's the court's discretion to hold such a hearing or not. Sort of like my "two juries" issue upthread, it's not clear why the witness should be presumed truthful now and untruthful previously, rather than vice versa.

[DrunkenBoat]

66. "“There is *no basis* in *text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice*" = false.

[Recursion]

73. Well, what is it? There is significant precedent for a jury's verdict being sacrosanct

Courts can't (in general) overturn a jury's verdict simply because they think the jury was wrong. If there is new evidence introduced in the appeals process, the rules of evidence for that process apply. If you want to say the appeals process should be very permissive of new exculpatory evidence, I agree they should, but in general they aren't, and that's the system we have right now.

What is the basis for requiring an evidentiary hearing for new evidence in an appeals process? Is it textual, traditional, in contemporary practice, or some combination?

(This, incidentally, is one of the biggest reasons I oppose capital punishment.)

[DrunkenBoat]

74. There *is* basis, spin it as you like. Nothing in Scalia's statement said anything about

REQUIRING. He flatly stated there is NO BASIS WHATSOEVER. This is a lie.

[donheld]

23. Shudder

[The Second Stone]

25. Factual innocence is enough reason to stop the

carrying out of any sentence. The only reason to carry out any sentence is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. When that proof was fraudulently obtained through the suborning of 7 of 9 witnesses to say that such a wrong is without any remedy flies in the face of any organized system of laws, and a failure to conduct a thorough investigation of such a subornation is tyranny.

[Poll_Blind]

27. Did he really say that? Sweet Jesus, he should be removed from the court simply for that.

God that guy is a jackassopotamus.

PB

[Recursion]

45. As a matter of law I don't know any judge or lawyer who would disagree *with what Scalia said*

Factual innocence is grounds for a pardon, not judicial relief.

But anyways, what he said was that claims of factual innocence discovered after an otherwise proper trial are not under current law grounds for a retrial.

[totodeinhere]

98. If we can remove a judge for merely saying something that we disagree with then there goes our

independent judiciary. He should not be removed for saying that. I'm assuming you are talking about impeachment since that would be the only way to remove him.

[baldguy]

28. If a person is factually innocent, any death sentence is improper.

Antonin Scalia has no business sitting in judgement of anybody, much less as a Supreme Court Judge. Calling him by the title "Justice" is a sad, sick joke.

[lunatica]

29. Factual malfeasance isn't enough to impeach Scalia is what he 's hoping

[City Lights]

30. Well that explains a lot.

Blows my mind that he actually said that, but it does explain things.

[Recursion]

72. Suppose Scalia were convicted of a crime (we can hope!)...

... and a Scalia-friendly Supreme Court decided without a hearing that "new evidence" actually exonerated him so he was to be set free. Courts in general can't just overturn a jury's decision because they disagree with it.

[nomb]

32. In defense of my own sanity, because I could not fathom such an utterence, I checked it out:

http://news.lawreader.com/?p=1970

[SoCalDem]

33. One would think that he would have responded

He's not known to be a shrinking violet :)

[Recursion]

79. Oddly enough Scalia's concurrence makes more sense than Rheinquist's actual opinion

And he's right that if Herrera had been decided otherwise, every person convicted under state law would essentially be entitled to a Federal retrial.

[coalition_unwilling]

34. Buh-bye America. You were a nice idea while you lasted. Just

pissed my ancestors fought in the Union Army for this piece of shit country.

"Mere factual innocence" - language worthy of an Eichmann, imho. (Sorry to have invoked Godwin's Law, but the circumstances seemed a propos.)

[Recursion]

71. Who decides if new evidence exonerates the convicted person, and under what rules?

Scalia's (valid, IMO) point is that the answer to that question is not found in the Constitution or even in habeas case law in general.

[Nye Bevan]

39. EVIL.

Maybe there is some fancy-schmancy legal theory to "justify" this.

But it is evil.

[COLGATE4]

82. Take the time to read the posts on this which are written by

lawyers and educate yourself on what Scalia actually said. Whether or not you agree with it is one thing, but painting the appeals procedure and rules as "some fancy-schmancy legal theory" is pure RW babble.

[Nye Bevan]

107. Yes, I do realize now that he didn't actually say that.

I still maintain that it is evil to execute someone when it is absolutely clear that there is plenty of reasonable doubt about their guilt.

[hifiguy]

41. Scalia missed his calling by a few hundred years

He would have made an absolutely perfect Inquisitor. The man is a monster, morally and ethically.

[Rex]

43. Fuck you Scarface! History will not be kind to the longest serving

SCOTUS judge imo. Shithead will be remembered as a lying, perverse worm.

[DirkGently]

44. I remember when that decision issued. Insanity, defined.

[DrunkenBoat]

46. "mere" innocence. wtf? & "mere" guilt isn't enough to prosecute scalia for graft.

[Recursion]

50. The "mere" comes from a different quote, about "mere claims of innocence"

This seems to be an amalgamation of two things Scalia has said.

1. Evidence of innocence discovered after a legally valid conviction do not automatically grant somebody a retrial as a matter of current law (I don't think anyone at all disagrees with that as a statement of fact)

and

2. "Mere claims" of innocence are not themselves dispositive (obviously)

[DrunkenBoat]

58. In Herrera he basically said it. New evidence supporting innocence not grounds for habeus relief,

i.e. no right to review after trial, even if new evidence = innocence.

(Herrera) urged in a second federal habeas proceeding that newly discovered evidence demonstrated that he was "actually innocent" of the murders... and that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantee therefore forbid his execution. He supported this claim with affidavits tending to show that his now-dead brother had committed the murders. The District Court, inter alia, granted his request for a stay of execution so that he could present his actual innocence claim and the supporting affidavits in state court. In vacating the stay, the Court of Appeals held that the claim was not cognizable on federal habeas absent an accompanying federal constitutional violation.

Held: Herrera's claim of actual innocence does not entitle him to federal habeas relief. Pp.398-419.

(a) Herrera's constitutional claim for relief based upon his newly discovered evidence of innocence must be evaluated in light of the previous 10 years of proceedings in this case. In criminal cases, the trial is the paramount event for determining the defendant's guilt or innocence. Where, as here, a defendant has been afforded a fair trial and convicted of the offense for which he was charged, the constitutional presumption of innocence disappears. Federal habeas courts do not sit to correct errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution. See, e. g., Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86, 87-88. Thus, claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief...

Petitioner urges us to hold that this showing of innocence entitles him to relief in this federal habeas proceeding. We hold that it does not.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/506/390/case.html

[Recursion]

60. Right, that is what the law says currently, yes?

As part of an appeal process the court may conduct an evidentiary hearing into claims of new exculpatory evidence. I feel like the whole thread is missing the part of the "new evidence" having to be judged by somebody.

[DrunkenBoat]

65. Not according to the three justices in dissent.

JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS and JUSTICE SOUTER join with respect to Parts I-IV, dissenting.

Nothing could be more contrary to contemporary standards of decency, see Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 406 (1986), or more shocking to the conscience, see Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 172 (1952), than to execute a person who is actually innocent.

I therefore must disagree with the long and general discussion that precedes the Court's disposition of this case. See ante, at 398-417. That discussion, of course, is dictum because the Court assumes, "for the sake of argument in deciding this case, that in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of 'actual innocence' made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional." Ante, at 417. Without articulating the standard it is applying, however, the Court then decides that this petitioner has not made a sufficiently persuasive case....

http://supreme.justia.com/us/506/390/case.html

[spanone]

47. he is one fucking sick puppy

[Octafish]

51. ''Factual Innocence'' THIS, Scalia, you NAZI whore.

This gesture means Alito is just another word for Mussolini.



A message not from America’s Ruling Gangster Class.

[Recursion]

54. Who decides "factual innocence"?

I see this a lot on here; people think evidence of innocence will be obviously certain and requires no judgment to consider. Even DNA-based exonerations are usually in the form of "well, now it's possible that it was someone else" rather than "this guy definitely didn't do it" (though the latter does happen occasionally).

This is a misquote, but even the misquote is factually true: there is not a precedent in US law for evidence discovered after a legally proper conviction to automatically stop the punishment of that person.

[dpibel]

90. Straw man

Who, exactly, is arguing for the proposition that newly discovered evidence should automatically stop punishment?

There's a whole raft of remedies between execute now and exonerate now. Including new trial.

"Requires no judgment to consider" is pure strawman.

You pretend that this is about appellate courts substituting their judgment on matters of fact. But, as I'm sure you know, examining weight and sufficiency of evidence is well within the purview of courts of appeal. They do it all the time.

And if they find insufficient evidence, they can remand for quite a number of remedies.

[treestar]

57. That's taking the law to an extreme

It's like the strict letter of the law. But the courts must also do equity - here is a clear case. Innocence in that type of case is not "mere," asshole (to Scalia).

[unblock]

59. "mere" factual innocence turns the death penalty into premeditated murder of an innocent person.

but scalia's fine with the premeditated murder of innocent people because it shows people that the premeditated murder of innocent people is bad.

[white_wolf]

62. Scalia's legal philosophy seems to be a twisted blend of Formalism and Pragmatism.

Like a Formalist he seems to be only concerned with the black letter of the law and like a Pragmatist he seems to view concepts such as justice an fairness as meaningless, oh and also like Pragmatists he seems to hate democracy.

[Recursion]

80. The exculpatory evidence in this case is interesting too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins

Specifcally, a relative of Herrera's made a deathbed confession that he had committed the murder. By nature, this confession cannot be cross-examined. And there was physical evidence placing Herrera at the crime scene. The question was whether Herrera was guaranteed a Federal habeas hearing on the basis of this.

[jschurchin]

81. Just goes to show

Being a fucking idiot isn't a deterrent to being a member of the highest court in the land. What a waste of an egg and sperm.

[robertpaulsen]

84. I said, “You know they refused Jesus, too”

Scalia said, "You ain't him".

;)

[uhnope]

85. FAKE QUOTE. Shouldn't these thing be deleted? This is what's wrong with internet mentality. nt

[proud patriot]

86. were someone scalia loves to come under such a quote

but some animals are more equal on this farm so it would never be alas.

[elleng]

87. Not merely 'ridiculous,' SoCal.

Unhuman, inhumane, unAmerican, unChristian. . . . .

[Indydem]

89. I cannot find evidence of that quote in the opinion.

Can you?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15342484323761015051&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[provis99]

91. O'Connor's position in Herrera v Collins is actually worse than Scalia's.

Her position was that whether a person is innocent or guilty of a crime does not matter; as long as we have a scapegoat to execute, who has been convicted by a jury, all is ok.

"Dispositive for Justice O'Connor, however, was that " not innocent in any sense of the word." O'Connor took the position that Herrera could not be "legally and factually innocent" because he "was tried before a jury of his peers, with the full panoply of protections that our Constitution affords criminal defendants..."

[SemperEadem]

95. it's time for term limits on those yahoos on the supreme court

scalia's been up there too long.

[totodeinhere]

101. Term limits might have also got rid of some great justices such as Justice Douglas.

And it would take a constitutional amendment which is not going to happen.

[marmar]

99. In a different time and place, Scalia would have been an eager gas chamber attendant.

nt

[Honeycombe8]

105. Wow. That's unbelievable. I don't know of any civilized person who'd agree w/that. nt