Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Scalia: No constitutional problems executing an innocent man

“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.” --Antonin Scalia
This is the case he's talking about. Seven of 9 eyewitnesses have now recanted.

2 comments:

Matt said...

The specifics of this case appears to be frightening and terrible. Also, I hate Scalia. I am, however, forced to play devil's advocate here.

At this point all we legally have is "ALLEGED" innocence because his conviction has never been overturned and the evidence has never been brought into court. Rightly so, Scalia says the SCOTUS will not protect a man for alleged innocence.

As for outrage and screams of injustice for the court not admitting the recanted statements, I do have some sympathy. It seems there is reasonable doubt he committed the crime, now, 17 years after his initial conviction.

However, consider this, from your own wikipedia link: "If every verdict could be set aside by the casual acceptance of a witness's changing his mind or suggesting uncertainty, decades after the event, it is easy to see how many cases would have to be tried at least twice (perhaps ad infinitum)."

Jason Roselander said...

He is pretty clearly innocent. Seven of nine witnesses have now recanted. Several were disadvantaged members of the community who allege that the police coerced their testimony. The other two are the original suspect and a man who did not identify the defendant until two years after the crime. There is no material evidence linking him to the murder.

I believe that it's not uncommon for new evidence to come out in a settled case, resulting either in a new trial or outright exoneration. In this case however that did not happen. Given the evidence, that represents a serious miscarriage of justice. It matters little to me what a close line-reading of the Constitution has to say about the matter. Regardless of what "originalists" may think, the Constitution does not provide rules for every situation. This is exactly why we need justices with common sense and a modicum of compassion.

As for your quote (from the prosecuting attorney no less) it begs the question pretty fucking hard. I would disagree with the following phrases, for starters: 1) "a" witness, 2) changing his mind, 3) suggesting uncertainty. None of these apply. He's rhetorically trying to diminish the actual facts of the case.

1) It's not "a" witness--it's seven.
2) You can only truly "change your mind" about something subjective. Identifying a killer isn't something you "make up your mind" about, like what to have for dinner. It's just a matter of fact.
3) None of the former witnesses are "suggesting uncertainty." They are very clearly accusing the police of coercing testimony they knew to be false.