14 Comments so far

1. mzbitca on October 15, 2008 6:44 pm

   do we know if this was a unanimous decision or not?

2. Cara on October 15, 2008 8:03 pm

   According to this article, it was a one-line statement with no recorded dissenting opinion.

3. Cara on October 15, 2008 8:04 pm

   But I don’t know, do they usually write dissenting statements for cases that they refuse to hear?

4. mzbitca on October 15, 2008 8:17 pm

   I wouldn’t think so I’ve only seen that on actual verdicts. I am just personally curious as to the dynamic of the decision. What I don’t understand…why give the stay of exectuion if you had no intention of hearing the case and the Georgia courts have made it perfectly clear they wont prevent it

5. SunlessNick on October 15, 2008 10:02 pm

   The case has led to an outpouring of support for Mr. Davis, largely because seven of nine witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, with two claiming that the police had pressured them to testify against him. Prosecutors presented no physical evidence and no murder weapon, and three witnesses have said another man admitted to the murder.
   

   As I recall, one of the two remaining witnesses was also the other principal suspect.

   What I don’t understand…why give the stay of exectuion if you had no intention of hearing the case and the Georgia courts have made it perfectly clear they wont prevent it

   Judging by the article, Davis’ execution was only hours away when they granted the stay, so even the time it would take to decide whether to hear the appeal made it necessary. Though it still seems torturous to hold out a false hope like that.

   Mr. Lawton, the district attorney, said Mr. Davis received a fair trial and benefited from “an international firestorm of public relations campaigning” on his behalf.

   I don’t remember a firestorm.

6. DJ Black Adam on October 15, 2008 11:11 pm

   This is why I am against the death penalty. Sure, there are many criminals who I feel deserve nothing less, unfortunately the government cannot be trusted with such a power as they will ineveitably (if not already) kill an innocent person.

7. Renee on October 16, 2008 2:39 pm

   I just heard about this, and I am truly saddened. No matter the evidence against this man the state has not right to execute anyone. It is committing a homicide. Since it is well known that the death penalty has race and class issues that are built into the system how can justice possibly be achieved?

   I hope against hope that they will find away to get another stay granted in this case.

8. Jenn on October 16, 2008 6:59 pm

   Oh God, this reminds me of when Clinton executed Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally disabled man, because he killed a cop and to appear “tough on crime”.

   The only thing worse than the death penalty is executing innocents, children, or those with the functioning mentality of children.

   I’ve written the Georgia board, but I fear that isn’t enough. Stuff like this just makes me feel hopelessly powerless.

9. Ben Adelson on October 17, 2008 2:30 am

   Why haven’t the presidential candidates decided to step in to help an innocent man?? With their star power they could surely change the tide. Or maybe George bush can do something positive for a change and overturn the supreme court

10. JenniferRuth on October 17, 2008 7:30 am

    Is there anything that I can do, even though I don’t live in America?
    Would a letter from me carry any weight?

11. jovan byars on October 17, 2008 5:08 pm

    I’ve been disgusted by the US Supreme Court since April 18, 2007.

12. Anna on October 17, 2008 5:23 pm

    Whilst I fully agree with the notion this needs serious rethinking – the concept of Bush overturning a court judgement is not without peril; kind of screws the whole ’separation of powers’ thing and sets a horrible precedent, considering the other sort of stuff Bush is liable to meddle in.

13. Cara on October 17, 2008 5:29 pm

    Anna — wouldn’t it simply be a pardon? I thought that a president could issue a pardon either from a crime entirely or from a specific punishment like the death penalty. A president is supposed to have that kind of “meddling” power.

    Not that it’s going to happen. McCain is going to keep his mouth shut because Georgia is mildly contested and he’s already fighting to hold onto enough states that Republicans should have wrapped up without a problem. Also, he wants to look tough on crime. Obama will keep his mouth shut also for political reasons — to look tough on crime like McCain, and also because there is a strong racial component to this case. Too many racist asshats would see it as his “taking the side of blacks over whites” and that would hurt him.

14. Anna on October 17, 2008 5:45 pm

    ahh. things are so different over there!
    I’m rather ignorant, mind, but I think here if the Home Office offered a pardon we’d scream bloody murder.
    No pun intended, I’ve just worked my fifth 12-hour shift this week and I have absolutely no brain left.