Let’s say that you are put on trial for a murder that you didn’t commit. And then let’s say that you are convicted of that murder. And let’s say that you appeal your conviction but the conviction is upheld because the judge, lawyers, and jury in your case all acted appropriately. The facts and testimony made it look like you were guilty, but you weren’t. It wasn’t the fault of the justice system that you were convicted, but the fault of a cruel twist of fate.
That can happen. I am sure it has happened many times.
So, imagine now that you are put on death row. And while you are awaiting your execution, the witnesses at your trial begin to recant their story. Eventually, seven of the nine key witnesses against you recant their testimony. New people come forward and implicate one of the witnesses against you as the true murderer.
In this circumstance, would it be Constitutional to execute you. If you are Antonin Scalia, it might very well be.
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.
I think Scalia is arguing that the Supreme Court is under no obligation to grant a reprieve to an innocent man if that man was convicted in a fair trial. But, in this case, most of the key witnesses say that they gave false testimony. How fair is that? It may be true that the prosecutor didn’t knowingly introduce false evidence and that the judge conducted the trial according to the law and that the jury followed their instructions to a tee. But the trial wasn’t exactly fair when it was filled with perjurers, now was it? And even under this reading of the law, how could it be Constitutional to execute a man you believe to be innocent?
How did this guy get confirmed unanimously to the court? Naturally, Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in this dissent. But the court has granted a hearing and this man may yet avoid execution.
The Scenario you described could be that of Sirhan Sirhan. Now do you understand why Scalia is hedging?
With seven out of nine witnesses recanting their testimony, the trial was anything but fair. How can Scalia and Thomas come up with such twisted and convoluted thinking? They are an utter disgrace to SCOTUS and a sad commentary on the political party from which they sprang. Why do Republicans hate the Constitution so much?
Did you read Jeffery Toobin’s recent book about the Supreme Court .. Toobin’s basic point(well .. he didn’t say this .. but it comes through the whole book) .. is that most of those who serve on the Court(especially the past 20 years or so) have egos so huge .. that thinking they actually decide cases on the merits is just naivety .. Clarence Thomas especially .. Thomas basically comes off as hating everything about himself .. a guy who got where he is because of affirmative action .. yet hates it .. and on and on
Any person who knowingly sends a person to their death, even without actually pulling the lever, all the while with the knowledge of his innocence, or at least serious doubt about his culpability, is a murderer.
Reading the opinions it looks like most of Scalia’s problem could be resolved if Congress amended 28 USC 2254(d)(1) to take these kind of circumstances into account. Scalia claims that the statute bars relief (and the quoted section is part of his explanation of WHY the statute bars relief). Stevens is inviting the district court to declare that statute unconstitutional as applied in this case.
I agree with Stevens that these are extraordinary circumstances and warrant sending it back to the lower court. But it would be a whole lot easier if Congress would amend the statute – rather than having years of trials on the constitutional issue.
.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) extensively revised the law of habeas corpus as practiced within the federal judicial system. One of those revisions applied to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), which limits a federal court’s authority to grant writs of habeas corpus on behalf of persons in state custody. Consistent with this section, a federal court’s jurisdictional authority is constrained by three specified standards of review, two pertaining to errors of law and one pertaining to errors of fact. This Article focuses on subsection (d)(1), which creates the critical review standards applicable to errors of law.
NYT op-ed: Bob Barr on Troy Davis and AEDPA
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."on its face.
If the US actually were a nation of laws, the Constitution would take precedence over an “anti-terrorism” act.
Actually, I’d say that a cold-bloodedly literal interpretation of the Constitution backs Scalia and Thomas’ dissent. Nothing in the Constitution, as far as I can tell, demands that the convict be given a new trial.
That said, I rather suspect that the Founders would have sided with the majority in this case. Common sense and a basic sense of human decency requires it, and besides, nothing in the Constitution forbids it, either. The Founders were sensible, decent people, for the most part, and probably assumed that their posterity would consist of more of the same.
The law is not justice; it is a tool for achieving justice. Scalia and Thomas, like many right wing judges, don’t understand that distinction.
Justice Booman.
I hate to be a stick in the mud but pretty much ALL convictions of any crime (right down to shoplifting) have relatively little to do with whether someone is “actually” innocent or not.
Let’s put it this way:
On one hand, at 4:00am on a deserted street, I blow through a bunch of stop signs. No cameras record it and no humans witness it. Did I commit a crime?
On the other hand, at 4:00 pm on the same street a police officer “sees” me not fully stop at a stop sign and writes me a citation. I know I properly stopped by the officer says I didn’t and when we go to court, I lose (during a fair judicial process) and get punished.
Now in which case did I “actually” fail to stop at a stop sign?
Now same deal only ramp up the crime. In one situation I kill someone with (judicial) impunity and never get apprehended, prosecuted or convicted. On the other hand, we have a case like we see here.
Is it unfair? Of course, it’s grossly unfair. It’s grossly unfair when it’s about stop signs, it doesn’t have to be murder.
I think we need a clearer understanding of what the justice system is even FOR. It is saying that two (or more) private individuals do not have the legal right to settle their own differences. Period.
Therefore in any situation where people who don’t know you have the right to judge you, then the rules and etiquette of the system triumph over anything that falls under “fair”. It’s no different than mandatory sentence obligations, albeit in a different form.
If you want to live in a collective society that has total strangers deciding whether you live or die or spend the rest of your life in a hole, then naturally the system’s priority is going to be buttressing its foundation and NOT whether it’s fair for YOU.
Try talking to people on death row whose lawyers were drunk or fell asleep or hideously incompetent and irresponsible.
On and on and on…
My opinion is you can’t fix a broken ship and Scalia is just a mollusk clinging to the hull of the Titantic at this point.
Pax
Unca Clarence..
expecting him to do the right thing…
nope.
he wouldn’t admit to racism until the chair was about to be kicked from under him at his own lynching.
No, they’re not nuts. They’re just unimaginative and suffer from visions of founding fathers dancing in their heads.
“In this circumstance, would it be Constitutional to execute you. If you are Antonin Scalia, it might very well be.”
It might be Constitutional to execute Antonin Scalia?
Booman-they’re all nuts-
Gop theme song-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8w_2hvluKY