Hello. Come on in. The daddy writes about current events, literature, music and, once in a while, drops something on you from back in the day to make you pause and ponder, stop and stare, and begin to wonder. Who knows? You may start to pace the floor, shake your head from side to side, then fall down on bended knees in a praying position and cry, "Lawd, have mercy! What is this world coming to?" Check yourself! But this blog is NOT about the daddy. It's about you: your boos, your fam, your hood, your country...our hopes and dreams of a better tomorrow. So let's make a pact: the daddy will put it on the track if you'll chase it down and hit him back. Together, we can definitely take it to another level. Shall we?"

Friday, October 24, 2008

Troubling Questions Surround the Troy Davis Execution

Today, the daddy is feeling the recent commentary by Barry Scheck, a well-known and highly respected lawyer. He is also the lawyer who started The Innocence Project, an organization which advocates for prisoners and has helped free many prisoners from execution by the State. His comments on the Troy Davis case and his impending execution, which is scheduled for this coming Monday:

Troubling Question Surround the Troy Davis Execution

by Barry Scheck

By now, hopefully many people have heard about Troy Davis, who is set to be executed Monday in Georgia for the murder of a police officer in Savannah. Investigations conducted since his 1991 conviction have produced disturbing affidavits showing that seven of the nine key witnesses who testified against Davis now recant their trial testimony, claiming they were coerced to lie by Savannah police. Despite the seriousness of these allegations and the sheer number of recantations, Georgia courts and state officials have not only been unwilling to stay his execution, but they have even refused to hold a hearing with live, sworn testimony to assess the credibility of the recanting witnesses.

What most people don't know is why Davis can't get a full hearing on the new evidence -- and just how ridiculously far four judges of the Georgia Supreme Court have gone (there were three dissenters) to avoid reviewing post-conviction evidence of innocence.

The recantation of a witness alone does not and should not automatically result in a conviction being vacated -- recantation evidence is treated with caution by courts because, after all, the witness is saying he or she once lied under oath, so how can one be so sure they are not just lying again? Nonetheless, many wrongful convictions have been overturned because a recanting witness, testifying in person and under oath before a judge, is found to be credible and the reason for the recantation - often a claim that the original trial testimony was coerced - is found to be persuasive. But in Georgia the recanting witnesses don't get to testify because the state's courts have created an extraordinary Catch-22 rule -- the "purest fabrication" doctrine - that arbitrarily denies evidentiary hearings even when extremely persuasive recantation affidavits have been submitted.

The "purest fabrication" doctrine means that post-conviction hearings don't have to be held to evaluate the credibility of recanting witnesses unless the defendant can show, by extrinsic proof before the hearing is held, that the original testimony was absolutely false. The example cited by the Georgia Supreme Court in the Davis case is a recanting witness who testified at trial that he was an accomplice to a murder but can now show, to support his recantation, that he was incarcerated in another county at the time of the crime. Needless to say, in cases with that kind of extrinsic, objective evidence that the recanting witness gave false testimony, hearings are superfluous. In short, the "purest fabrication" doctrine allows Georgia courts to duck inexcusably the most troubling, serious, and controversial recantation cases, the ones that cry out for judges to make fair and full assessments of witness credibility and claims of police coercion, if only to buttress public confidence in the system.

What's left of the evidence against Troy Davis inspires little confidence. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. The case turned on the testimony of two jailhouse snitches, who have both recanted, and seven eyewitnesses, five of whom recanted. The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations in recent years -- 223 people who served more than 2,500 combined years in prison for crimes they didn't commit -- shows that eyewitnesses can get it wrong and jailhouse snitches lie. More than 75% of these wrongful convictions involved eyewitness misidentification; 15% involved jailhouse snitches. Because DNA revealed the truth in those cases, they didn't rely on recanted testimony, although there were recantations in some of them. But DNA testing is an option in just 10% of all criminal cases. When DNA testing cannot be conducted, innocent prisoners rely on other evidence -- including credible witness recantations - to secure their exonerations.

The Innocence Project, which I co-founded with Peter Neufeld in 1992, advocates for legislation that improves the accuracy of the criminal justice system -- protecting the innocent and helping apprehend the guilty -- by addressing the root causes of the problem. Georgia lawmakers are currently considering reforms to eyewitness identification procedures in the state, but any reforms will come too late too late to help Troy Davis and other people who have already been convicted. We need to reform our criminal justice system to prevent wrongful convictions, but our courts must also be able and willing to examine new evidence of innocence when it is discovered, even when it requires making credibility judgments about recanting witnesses.

If we've learned anything from all these DNA exonerations nationwide, it's that our system makes mistakes. Georgia officials should stop Troy Davis' execution and give him a full hearing -- before carrying out a sentence they can never reverse.


Note from the daddy: If you believe Troy Davis is innocent and will be wrongly executed, please act now.

Contact Carlo Musso. Dr. Musso's company has a contract with the GA Department of Corrections (GDC) to participate in executions. GDC policy dictates that two doctors must be present to allow for an execution to be carried out. This is of course in addition to the other medical professionals who facilitate executions including nurses that prepare the IVs through which poison will flow to Troy Davis' veins.

Please take a moment to send a letter (sample below) to Dr. Musso, president of Rainbow Medical Associates and ask him to remember his humanity and decide NOT to participate in the execution of a man who may be innocent.

The American Medical Associate Code of Medical Ethics explicitly provide that "A physician, as a member of the profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a state execution." With these letters, we can remind Dr. Musso of his oath to facilitate healing, not killing.

You can fax Dr. Musso the letter on (770) 692-4754.

You can send the letter to him via the Internet: copy and paste the letter in their online contact form

Here is the sample letter:


October 16, 2008
Carlo Musso, MD.
President, Rainbow Medical Associates
c/o CorrectHealth
9020 Peridot Parkway
Stockbridge, GA 30281

Dear Dr. Musso,

We are writing today to urge you and your company, Rainbow Medical Associates, to decline involvement with the pending execution of Troy Anthony Davis on October 27, 2008 at 7:00pm at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia.

The execution of Troy Davis would be immoral and wrong. Almost all of the witnesses against him have recanted or changed their stories and no physical evidence was used to convict him. The courts and the parole board have failed to use their power to prevent this imminent miscarriage of justice. However, Troy Davis' execution cannot take place unless human beings participate. You can refuse to help the state of Georgia put Troy Davis to death.

The American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics explicitly provides that "A physician, as a member of the profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a state execution." We implore you to remember your humanity and respect you and your firm's oath to facilitate healing, not killing.

We thank you in advance for choosing not to participate in the execution of a man who may well be innocent. Such an act would be irreversible, immoral and deeply damaging to the reputation of our state and the confidence in our justice system.

Your Name
Email or Phone Number


Anonymous said...

Thanks, daddy. We need information on how to advocate for Troy Davis. God bless you.

dudleysharp said...

There are, almost always, at least two sides to a story. That is important.

(1) Davis v Georgia, Georgia Supreme Court, 3/17/08

" 'most of the witnesses to the crime who have allegedly recanted have merely stated that they now do not feel able to identify the shooter.' "One of the affidavits 'might actually be read so as to confirm trial testimony that Davis was the shooter.' " The murder occurred in 1989.

9/22/08, www(DOT)

"The Board has now spent more than a year studying and considering this case. . . . 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 all witnesses . . . and also had certain physical evidence retested and Davis interviewed."

"The Board has determined that clemency is not warranted."

(3) Chatham County District Attorney Lawton on the case facts at: http://tinyurl(DOT)com/46c73l

A detailed review of the extraordinary consideration that Davis was given for all of his claims.

(4) Officer Mark Allen MacPhail
The family of murdered Officer MacPhail believes that Troy Davis murdered their loved one and that the evidence is supportive of that opinion.