Here is the problem I have with this decision:WASHINGTON — A court ruled Tuesday that Troy Davis, a death row inmate given a rare second chance by the US Supreme Court, had failed to prove his innocence, clearing the way for his execution.
A highly unusual hearing was ordered in June for Davis, who has been on death row since 1991 for murdering a policeman, because seven of the nine witnesses against him had recanted testimony in the years since his trial.
But a court in the southern US state of Georgia decided on Tuesday that Davis, an African-American, had been unable to show that he was innocent of the fatal shooting of a white police officer in 1989.
1) In America, the burden is on the prosecution to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty.
2) Seven of the nine witnesses for the state say that they were pressured by police to implicate the defendant.
3) The state's total case rested upon this testimony, as there was no other evidence linking him to the crime.
4) If the testimony is coerced, then the testimony is not any good.
5) If the testimony is not any good, then at the very least, reasonable doubt exists.
So why must the defendant have to prove himself innocent, especially after prosecutorial misconduct in his trial? It does not make sense to me. And, if it turns out that the defendant is indeed innocent, then he is today's poster boy on why the death penalty should be abolished. I believe that this will go back to SCOTUS, which will overturn the verdict and sentence.
On another note, this happened in Georgia, which makes me very happy, as the spotlight will be off Texas for a few days, well at least for a couple of days anyways.
Article is here.