|
Post by kma367 on Sept 22, 2011 12:45:25 GMT -6
I also wanted to add that I personally believe that, due process requirement or not, the right thing for GA to do was to await a decision on Davis' request for a stay. The media machine has convinced people the guy was innocent. There would've been a riot had the state carried out the execution while Davis' request for stay was still pending with SCOTUS.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2011 13:41:24 GMT -6
If Georgia had to wait. Then all the analysts on every network were wrong. But I digress. There was No DNA technology in Georgia at the time. A few years after the Conviction the Prosecution asked for and recieved a DNA test on the bloody clothes found in Troy Davis's Mothers House. It was a Tiny small sample (Which is all you going to get when you shoot someone laying on the ground) The sample was destroyed for the test and was inconclusive
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2011 15:03:56 GMT -6
Dane, in many European jurisdictions, a defendant is not given the benefit of a presumption of innocence in court and also bears the burden of proving innocence/refuting the state's case in the first trial. No. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, article 6.2: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htmThe Convention is applicable at national level. It has been incorporated into the legislation of the States Parties, which have undertaken to protect the rights defined in the Convention. Domestic courts therefore have to apply the Convention. One example: French Code of Criminal Procedure: "Every person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent as long as his guilt has not been established. Attacks on his presumption of innocence are proscribed, compensated and punished in the circumstances laid down by statute."
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 22, 2011 21:38:25 GMT -6
Druxus, the analysts were obviously all wrong. Otherwise, it would be pointless for state prisoners to file last minute appeals in federal courts if the state could execute without awaiting a decision from the federal courts. With any luck, one of the attorneys will see this and post to clear the issue up once and for all.
Thanks, Bretagne. I took civics classes 30 years ago and the presumption of innocence was one of the differences highlighted at the time between the US and European judicial systems. Does the burden rest solely on the prosecution, or does it shift to the accused once the prosecution has presented its case?
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2011 22:39:40 GMT -6
I think the CNN analyst was incorrect. As I understand it, once the state receives notice that a pleading has been filed in any federal court, due process requires the state to await a decision on whether the stay is granted or not. If the state could go through with the execution despite the filing, there would be no reason for defense attorneys to wait until the last minute to file such stays in state cases before the various federal courts. Not unless the supreme court issued a temporary stay. Troy Davis had already exhausted his appeals, therefore Georgia was free to execute him. This type of stuff happens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2011 19:47:05 GMT -6
I am so SICK of this thug's face still plastered on some of the news sites. GIVE IT UP, CNN. I have three words to describe Troy Davis' innocence claims: Roger. Keith. Coleman.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Sept 23, 2011 19:55:11 GMT -6
Druxus, the analysts were obviously all wrong. Otherwise, it would be pointless for state prisoners to file last minute appeals in federal courts if the state could execute without awaiting a decision from the federal courts. SCOTUS always issues a stay for the length of their deliberations in these matters.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 23, 2011 23:31:31 GMT -6
So the analysts were wrong when they said that the state could've gone through with the execution on schedule prior to SCOTUS making a decision?
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Sept 24, 2011 11:02:26 GMT -6
So the analysts were wrong when they said that the state could've gone through with the execution on schedule prior to SCOTUS making a decision? Thanks! Yes. You're welcome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2011 16:11:03 GMT -6
Dane, in many European jurisdictions, a defendant is not given the benefit of a presumption of innocence in court and also bears the burden of proving innocence/refuting the state's case in the first trial. No. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, article 6.2: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htmThe Convention is applicable at national level. It has been incorporated into the legislation of the States Parties, which have undertaken to protect the rights defined in the Convention. Domestic courts therefore have to apply the Convention. One example: French Code of Criminal Procedure: "Every person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent as long as his guilt has not been established. Attacks on his presumption of innocence are proscribed, compensated and punished in the circumstances laid down by statute." None of this applied to Troy Davis during his appeals process. He had been found guilty. Therefore, while attempting to reverse that situation, there is no presumption of innocence--in fact there is a presumption of guilt. His lawyers had to prove their claim, and they failed to. Which is not surprising for anyone who read anything about the details of the case, other than the incorrect information reported by the press, (i.e. 7 of 9 recanted, no actual evidence, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Sept 25, 2011 6:46:46 GMT -6
Dane, in many European jurisdictions, a defendant is not given the benefit of a presumption of innocence in court and also bears the burden of proving innocence/refuting the state's case in the first trial. In the US once someone is convicted of a crime, the burden of proof shifts to the convicted defendant to prove innocence. The statement that you took issue with is an accurate reflection of the US legal system and that is just how it should be. Troy Davis failed in his efforts to overturn his conviction because the evidence on which his claims were based was not sufficient to prove his innocence. He failed to have recanting witnesses testify and relied upon their affidavits. He presented hearsay statements from Redd Coles, which were inadmissible. He also failed to call Coles as a witness to confront him with the alleged statements. Matt, once Davis' legal team filed the request for stay with SCOTUS, the State of Georgia by law could not go through with the execution until SCOTUS rejected the request. That's part of due process and that's the way it needs to be. Additionally, as I understand it, SCOTUS acted on the requests in the same day that it received them, rather than granting a temporary stay. Again, that's part of due process and that's the way it should be. In the end, the execution proceeded on the same date for which it was scheduled. There's nothing wrong with that. If you want to be angry, you should be angry with the legal team who waited until the day of Davis' execution to present their recycled claims to SCOTUS. It's obvious that the plan was to prevent the execution from going forward on 9/21 and buying Davis more time. kma367 kma367 Which jurisdictions would that be?
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Sept 25, 2011 9:08:51 GMT -6
Thanks, Bretagne. I took civics classes 30 years ago and the presumption of innocence was one of the differences highlighted at the time between the US and European judicial systems. Does the burden rest solely on the prosecution, or does it shift to the accused once the prosecution has presented its case? kma367 Even 30 years ago it wasn't like that, except for the parts of Europe being under Soviet influence.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Sept 25, 2011 11:43:45 GMT -6
kma: Don't let them scam you. You're correct. While there is no specific reference to a presumption of innocence in our Constitution, there are a number of Amendments that in reality create the presumption and protect it and criminal defendants much more vigorously than the laws of euroweenies. For example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Sept 25, 2011 13:21:11 GMT -6
kma: Don't let them scam you. You're correct. While there is no specific reference to a presumption of innocence in our Constitution, there are a number of Amendments that in reality create the presumption and protect it and criminal defendants much more vigorously than the laws of euroweenies. For example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silenceWhat KMA said was that there was no presumption of innocence in Europe. That is absolutely incorrect.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Sept 25, 2011 15:06:53 GMT -6
Right. It's like being "a little bit pregnant" - you are or you are not. There is either a true presumption of innocence or there is not. Call it what you like but requiring defendants to give statements or their failure to give statements being used against them or requiring them to take the stand or give statements in court is not a presumption of innocence.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Sept 25, 2011 23:52:03 GMT -6
Right. It's like being "a little bit pregnant" - you are or you are not. There is either a true presumption of innocence or there is not. Call it what you like but requiring defendants to give statements or their failure to give statements being used against them or requiring them to take the stand or give statements in court is not a presumption of innocence. It seems though that if the Wikipedia entry is correct, the only European countries partly infringing the right to remain silent are England and Wales. I know that in Germany the defendant has the right to remain silent and that family members also have that right. A defendant can also never be charged with false testimony. If he testifies, he must tell the truth but he cannot be punished for it. Thus he can and eventually will lie his butt off without consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Sept 26, 2011 10:57:29 GMT -6
I think the CNN analyst was incorrect. As I understand it, once the state receives notice that a pleading has been filed in any federal court, due process requires the state to await a decision on whether the stay is granted or not. If the state could go through with the execution despite the filing, there would be no reason for defense attorneys to wait until the last minute to file such stays in state cases before the various federal courts. That certainly seems to make sense. You may be right. In any case, I can't imagine that any state would go through with an execution with an appeal before SCOTUS.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Sept 27, 2011 1:36:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Oct 5, 2011 21:59:19 GMT -6
Rev. Agave posted this on the Juniper thread, but I believe it would apply in the Troy Davis case, as well, proving once and for all that the analysts were wrong when they stated that GA could've executed Davis in spite of the filing for an application for cert at SCOTUS.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by olivebranch on Oct 5, 2011 22:17:17 GMT -6
Shame on Georgia. They have murdered another innocent simply because he was a black man.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 5, 2011 22:32:42 GMT -6
Rev. Agave posted this on the Juniper thread, but I believe it would apply in the Troy Davis case, as well, proving once and for all that the analysts were wrong when they stated that GA could've executed Davis in spite of the filing for an application for cert at SCOTUS. kma367 It wouldn't. That statute applies only to the filing of the 1st habeas petition in district court unless the Court of Appeals approves the filing of a 2nd petition. For what it is worth, I think the SCOTUS would have had to issue the stay to force GA not to juice the guy. If the SCOTUS did not issue a stay, Davis could have been juiced before they decided. In other words, I am not sure that a stay would have been automatic by virtue of the filing alone. I do think the SCOTUS would always issue a stay in such situations until they decided.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Oct 6, 2011 2:21:03 GMT -6
Shame on Georgia. They have murdered another innocent simply because he was a black man. Fair enough, you see the DP as racist, thats up to you. But what about the racist who was executed on the same day as Davis? I thought you' have wante him put own?
|
|
|
Post by supermax on Oct 6, 2011 6:43:16 GMT -6
Uk caution since 1995 is "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." After being charged with an offence it changes slightly to "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention now, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." Right. It's like being "a little bit pregnant" - you are or you are not. There is either a true presumption of innocence or there is not. Call it what you like but requiring defendants to give statements or their failure to give statements being used against them or requiring them to take the stand or give statements in court is not a presumption of innocence. It seems though that if the Wikipedia entry is correct, the only European countries partly infringing the right to remain silent are England and Wales. I know that in Germany the defendant has the right to remain silent and that family members also have that right. A defendant can also never be charged with false testimony. If he testifies, he must tell the truth but he cannot be punished for it. Thus he can and eventually will lie his butt off without consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 6, 2011 7:20:06 GMT -6
Shame on Georgia. They have murdered another innocent simply because he was a black man. He was executed because he shot and killed a cop.
|
|
gillypod
Old Hand
PRO-DP Scot. PTO hates me - I am blessed
Posts: 596
|
Post by gillypod on Oct 6, 2011 9:47:36 GMT -6
Shame on Georgia. They have murdered another innocent simply because he was a black man. He was executed because he shot and killed a cop. Succinct and to the point Stormy, and totally true.
|
|
|
Post by moretoasts on Oct 6, 2011 10:10:19 GMT -6
Shame on Georgia. They have murdered another innocent simply because he was a black man. He was executed because he shot and killed a cop. Maybe Maybe not. That was what some people decided in a room next to court. And on the base of a clear evidence that later became not so clear
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Oct 6, 2011 10:17:02 GMT -6
He was executed because he shot and killed a cop. Maybe Maybe not. That was what some people decided in a room next to court. And on the base of a clear evidence that later became not so clear That is merely your uninformed and biased opinion, anti. He's dead. Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 6, 2011 13:32:10 GMT -6
He was executed because he shot and killed a cop. Maybe Maybe not. That was what some people decided in a room next to court. And on the base of a clear evidence that later became not so clear Did you read the court transcripts, the District Attorney's report, and the Attorney General's report?
|
|
|
Post by olivebranch on Oct 6, 2011 15:49:40 GMT -6
Shame on Georgia. They have murdered another innocent simply because he was a black man. Fair enough, you see the DP as racist, thats up to you. But what about the racist who was executed on the same day as Davis? I thought you' have wante him put own? The man in Texas committed a horrible crime but I don't condone his death either.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 6, 2011 17:33:06 GMT -6
Fair enough, you see the DP as racist, thats up to you. But what about the racist who was executed on the same day as Davis? I thought you' have wante him put own? The man in Texas committed a horrible crime but I don't condone his death either. So did Troy Davis.
|
|