Other than proven innocent comment, is if all this evidence is so shaky, why didn't he win any of the appeals? That's where I'm confused...
From what I understand of the law and the appeals process is that you can only appeal aspects of a case that fell within the original case and ruling. Recanted testimony, after the fact, as far as I can tell, will not change an appeals ruling, as long as the proper legal process, and results, came during the original trial. New evidence, especially in the case of questioned/recanted witness accounts can be tricky. They most frequently lead to a new trial. For a new trial, witness coercion would probably have to be proved in front of a judicial review.
The supreme court does not have executive powers. It hears cases and reviews ruling based on the interpretation of law and the constitution. The man had been found guilty by a jury of peers, and sentenced based on that verdict. Short of a miscarriage of law, an interpretation of the law, or clear and verified circumstances that change the verdict, the Supreme court tends to not get involved, allowing state legal and executive branches to rule in their own jurisdictions.
Personally, I don't know the circumstances of the two witnesses that have not changed their story since. Were they the two strongest witnesses? I haven't head the specific witnesses claims of coercion. But, I do know that this case and outcome is a mess. He was convicted and sentenced on the strength of 9 witnesses and no hard evidence. He was executed on that result.
It does seem odd that the load of questions and possible coercion would at least have resulted in a longer stay, or possibly having the death penalty changed to at least life in prison. Was it justice or was it a mistake? I don't think any of us will really be able to answer that definitively. And, I think that it is THAT, more than anything else, that makes people uncomfortable that he was indeed executed. People would rather be certain when it comes to ending a man's life.
i'm proud to live in a country where you can be executed based on circumstantial evidence...
22/09/2011 04:06:07 PM
- 1343 Views
And yet the Supreme Court didn't stop it. You're a lawyer right?
22/09/2011 04:19:05 PM
- 713 Views
Well, that right there was an ignorant thing to say.
22/09/2011 04:32:49 PM
- 773 Views
But they get all the media attention
22/09/2011 04:45:03 PM
- 664 Views
Cameron Todd Willingham is white, and his story is a national one since Perry is running for Pres
23/09/2011 03:41:52 PM
- 554 Views
those numbers are less schocking when you consider that blacks commet a lot more murders *NM*
22/09/2011 05:43:51 PM
- 295 Views
And this is a typically illogical argument.
22/09/2011 11:11:48 PM
- 703 Views
You're kidding, right?
23/09/2011 02:55:44 PM
- 651 Views
Re: You're kidding, right?
23/09/2011 07:36:38 PM
- 669 Views
Juror bias. *NM*
23/09/2011 08:35:10 PM
- 262 Views
Your evidence for that? *NM*
23/09/2011 11:33:58 PM
- 267 Views
Twenty-one years of life in the American South.
24/09/2011 12:40:10 AM
- 623 Views
Of course I'm interested
24/09/2011 04:03:51 AM
- 557 Views
From me being too involved with the subject material. I apologize.
24/09/2011 11:16:06 AM
- 536 Views
While I largely agree with your argument, I agree more with Cannoli on the NAACP.
23/09/2011 07:46:06 PM
- 603 Views
Huh.
22/09/2011 04:47:20 PM
- 728 Views
That jumped out at me too.
22/09/2011 04:50:52 PM
- 656 Views
What really confuses me
22/09/2011 04:58:32 PM
- 615 Views
That's a good question and I really wish it would be addressed.
22/09/2011 05:05:40 PM
- 684 Views
Re: That's a good question and I really wish it would be addressed.
22/09/2011 05:21:59 PM
- 744 Views
If the original trial is shown to be flawed that's supposed to require a new trial.
22/09/2011 08:25:51 PM
- 581 Views
Well...
22/09/2011 05:18:54 PM
- 762 Views
So if I understand you correctly...
22/09/2011 05:23:00 PM
- 703 Views
Yes, that is correct. And proving witness coercion is likely to be difficult if not impossible. *NM*
22/09/2011 05:30:37 PM
- 236 Views
it is only confusing because the evidence isn't really that shaky
22/09/2011 08:54:21 PM
- 632 Views
If I understand the Supreme Court correctly, the reason they denied the stay of execution was
22/09/2011 08:25:14 PM
- 679 Views
I completely support the Death Penalty without question.....
22/09/2011 08:27:54 PM
- 591 Views
Unreasonable doubt is impossible to eliminate.
22/09/2011 09:54:43 PM
- 662 Views
Doubt can be eliminated.....any question about Dalmer?
23/09/2011 01:00:52 PM
- 635 Views
Maybe he was framed by an enemy, government conspiracy or aliens.
23/09/2011 01:54:21 PM
- 611 Views
Jigga what?
*NM*
23/09/2011 03:36:07 PM
- 295 Views
![](/site_media/images/smilies/perplexed2.gif)
"I do not know if I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly or am now a butterfly..."
23/09/2011 06:50:34 PM
- 586 Views
Circumstantial evidence is not, I believe, a bar to conviction.
22/09/2011 09:43:56 PM
- 556 Views
Regarding the salvation thing, that is an argument FOR the death penalty, in my mind.
22/09/2011 11:37:16 PM
- 632 Views
That motive is seflish and thus fatal.
23/09/2011 01:17:00 AM
- 570 Views
Bullshit
25/09/2011 03:53:05 AM
- 798 Views
Where do YOU get the idea that imperfect contrition is good enough?
25/09/2011 02:29:18 PM
- 1068 Views
Thank God you're not an evangelist.
23/09/2011 02:59:06 PM
- 593 Views
And I pity the souls you have ministered to. They're in for a rude shock at their judgement
25/09/2011 04:01:05 AM
- 621 Views
lol roman catholicism *NM*
25/09/2011 04:39:55 AM
- 243 Views
Not just Roman Catholics, y'know, everyone who thinks God was not BSing about judgement.
25/09/2011 09:47:12 PM
- 647 Views
lol hellfire and brimstone *NM*
26/09/2011 12:12:28 AM
- 241 Views
I suppose in a consequences free world everything is a source of amusement.
26/09/2011 12:33:14 AM
- 785 Views
You really don't understand irony, do you? Particularly as it applies to your post about this case.
22/09/2011 11:26:49 PM
- 676 Views
.
23/09/2011 08:21:38 AM
- 623 Views
A list of anecdotal wrongs does not prove anything. If convictions can be wrong, so can exonerations *NM*
25/09/2011 04:03:26 AM
- 247 Views
sorry if i don't have time to link to every
thing i've read on the subject
23/09/2011 02:54:50 PM
- 741 Views
![](/site_media/images/smilies/censored.gif)
Well I would think you would have picked an article that offers some iota of proof of his innocence.
25/09/2011 04:14:45 AM
- 673 Views
Well, I wouldn't call eyewitness accounts circumstancial evidence.
23/09/2011 11:45:48 PM
- 612 Views
Nor would I, but I've heard that lawyers say, "an eye witness is the worst witness you can have."
25/09/2011 03:23:53 PM
- 647 Views