|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 28, 2003 16:18:45 GMT -6
Governor grants inmate a stay of execution----O'Bannon orders DNA testing of blood evidence against convicted murderer Darnell Williams.
Governor Frank O'Bannon announced this afternoon that he is granting a 60-day stay of execution for Death Row inmate Darnell Williams. The stay was granted in order for DNA testing to be carried out on blood evidence in the case.
Williams, 36, had been scheduled to be executed Friday in Michigan City for the 1986 murder of a Gary couple.
The Indiana Parole Board was scheduled to meet today to determine whether to recommended clemency for Williams, but O'Bannon asked them to delay their deliberations until the DNA testing has been completed.
In a statement, O'Bannon said, "The Indiana Supreme Court and the federal courts have determined that Williams has no legal right to DNA testing, primarily because there is so much other evidence linking Williams to the murders."
However, referring to the "unique circumstances of the case," O'Bannon said "it is appropriate to grant a stay in order that DNA tests be performed."
The governor said the stay of execution should not tip the case either way. "My decision to allow DNA testing does not preordain any outcome of any further request for clemency," he said.
The case has drawn national attention since Williams and death penalty opponents asked the state to release clothing he was wearing at the time of the slayings for DNA testing of blood stains.
They claim that DNA tests could show the blood was not from the victims.
The judge who presided over the court hearing, the prosecutor and some jurors have urged authorities to conduct DNA tests.
U.S. District Judge John Tinder last week denied Williams' request for testing.
The Indiana Supreme also has denied his request for testing and a request for consideration of new evidence in the case.
Despite what tests might show, there is ample evidence to justify Williams' death sentence, justices said.
Williams and Gregory Rouster were convicted of robbing and fatally shooting John and Henrietta Rease.
Williams has acknowledged taking part in the robbery, but denies that he killed anyone.
His attorneys note that Rouster does not face execution.
They maintain that Williams is mentally retarded and ineligible for the death penalty. The state disagrees with that claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirk on Jul 28, 2003 18:23:41 GMT -6
Let me ask you a question?
Do you happen to watch the news?
Just today a man was freed from death row because he was innocent.
What if this guy is actually innocent, then we will have spared his life, if not then he can be executed as he should be. It wont hurt you to wait sixty days for a man to die, will it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 28, 2003 21:47:06 GMT -6
1) It is terrrible this DNA test is ordered at the last minute. It should have been ordered years ago if its really that crucial.
2) It seems that the test in this case will prove nothing. The Indiana Supreme Court has already found that the test, if negative, does not in any way mean that he's innocent. And all the other evidence appears to find him guilty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2003 9:52:50 GMT -6
1) It is terrrible this DNA test is ordered at the last minute. It should have been ordered years ago if its really that crucial. 2) It seems that the test in this case will prove nothing. The Indiana Supreme Court has already found that the test, if negative, does not in any way mean that he's innocent. And all the other evidence appears to find him guilty. 1) I read somewhere that a charity group was paying for the test. Is it possible that paying for it was the cause of the delay? I think it's a shame that the state is not willing to pay for a DNA test when someone's life is on the line. 2)It may not prove innocence, but if it casts some doubt on his guilt, that's enough. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 29, 2003 12:40:50 GMT -6
1) I agree the state should definately pay for DNA testing in capital cases if its relevant to guilt or innocence. And it shouldn't have to be done at the last minute years after conviction!
2) In this case other evidence has already proved him guilty - ie. he participated in the murder even though it may not be the victims blood on his clothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2003 13:39:48 GMT -6
1) I agree the state should definately pay for DNA testing in capital cases if its relevant to guilt or innocence. And it shouldn't have to be done at the last minute years after conviction! 2) In this case other evidence has already proved him guilty - ie. he participated in the murder even though it may not be the victims blood on his clothing. You may be right, bob. But PARTICIPATION in a murder does not necessarily mean a capital offense. There is a difference between participating in a murder, and premeditating (is that a word?) and carrying out a cold-blooded killing. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 29, 2003 16:22:52 GMT -6
In some (most?) states, participation in one crime (eg. robbery) makes all involved equally guilty of any murder that may be committed by any one of them in the course of that crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2003 17:22:52 GMT -6
In some (most?) states, participation in one crime (eg. robbery) makes all involved equally guilty of any murder that may be committed by any one of them in the course of that crime. Seriously??? I could've sworn only the person who pulled the trigger could face the death penalty. Honestly, I think it's ridiculous that someone could face murder charges because they made the mistake of robbing a store with someone ELSE who ended up killing someone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2003 17:45:07 GMT -6
Seriously??? I could've sworn only the person who pulled the trigger could face the death penalty. Honestly, I think it's ridiculous that someone could face murder charges because they made the mistake of robbing a store with someone ELSE who ended up killing someone. Nope.... . Recall the case of the excaped Texas prisoners who murdered a cop moonlighting as a store security guard a couple of years ago. Realistically, only one actually murdered the cop (can't tell exactly who), but all were charged with participating in the crime. Thus far, all participants tried have been convicted and condemned. Trials are still going on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2003 18:25:50 GMT -6
Nope.... . Recall the case of the excaped Texas prisoners who murdered a cop moonlighting as a store security guard a couple of years ago. Realistically, only one actually murdered the cop (can't tell exactly who), but all were charged with participating in the crime. Thus far, all participants tried have been convicted and condemned. Trials are still going on. Seems a bit unfair, don't you think? I'm all for punishing criminals, but only for the crimes they actually did commit. If the prosecutors can't find enough evidence to convict them that way, I think it's better to leave it unsolved than to punish several people for the crime committed by one. |
|
