John Caldwell/The Coastal Source
A sketch from the 2010 evidentiary hearing. Click for more.
Some of you've been asking about the seven witnesses who recanted their original testimony in the Troy Davis case -- you want to know what, exactly, they recanted. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution offered a summary of five of them who spoke at his 2010 evidentiary hearing. For example:
Darrell “D.D.” Collins
Trial: He testified that he had told police he had seen Davis shoot at a car at a pool party on the evening before Officer Mark Allen MacPhail was shot and killed. At the same time, Collins said he had been pressured by police “to say what they wanted to hear.”
Wednesday: “I was scared,” he said, adding that police threatened to charge him as an accessory. “That’s what they wanted me to say. I thought that was the only way I could get out of it.”
The hearing had been ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the end, the federal judge ruled that Mr. Davis had failed to prove his innocence. "Not all recantations are created equal," he wrote.
(Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "Then and now: Witnesses change their stories.")
Leave a Comment:
The US is a barbaric country. How can you murder in the name of the state, and then go about business as usual?
Many of us dont know how to change the system, and wander around in it looking for a way to do so...
All our politicians are corrupt, how do you change a corrupt system, besides revolting against it?
I wouldn't go as far to say that "all" of our politicians are corrupt, but the ones that are do an extraordinary amount of damage.
We point fingers at other countries and run in telling them how they should run their governments when we sanction murder against our own people. A whole bunch of hypocrites, we are. We have got to make changes.
see my message below.
Exactly.
According to the right, we invaded Iraq to "free" their people.
They attacked us because they "hated our freedoms".
Then when it comes time for us to show the world what it's like to be free, stuff like this happens, and no one with the actual power intervenes.
Nine people said they saw Davi do it....Seven recanted....Now he's dead.
100,000,000 saw Sirhan Sirhan kill RFK...no one recanted...Now he's up for parole.
Indeed, but Sirhan Sirhan is not poor and Black. Although in this political fear-based climate I hasten to suggest that his Muslim culture might now have gotten him dead too. We are a country of murders in the name of the State. We ought to feel shame but instead some of us actually applaud. I am ashamed of us.
Sirhan Sirhan as well as Charles Manson sentences commuted during the period that the US supreme court had banned death as a crime punishment, I think.
NO NO NO - No witnesses saw Sirhan shoot Senator Kennedy. What the witnesses saw was Sirhan standing 1.5 to 6 feet in front of the Senator firing a pistol. Meanwhile, RFK was shot at point blank range in the back right occipital portion of his head, at an upward angle. He was also shot - at an UPWARD ANGLE - several more times.
Thane Eugene Ceasar was standing behind the Senator to his right, and witnesses absolutely saw him draw and fire his weapon. It would appear that Ceasar crouched down, and shot RFK in the head, shoulder and back.
Also - too many bullets for Sirhans gun, an 8 shot .22 caliber Iver Johnson.
Caesers gun was recovered in 1993 a nine-shot, .22 caliber revolver, serial number Y-13332
Both men were firing weapons, but nobody from the police took Caesars pistol.
Is it possible for a Kennedy to die without a conspiracy theory?
Well said. Sirhan Sirhan was actually seen on TV. Hard to recant that.
NO - no films were captured, and no television cameras captured the shooting. Only films of the aftermath, and an audio recording of the shooting exist.
Very easy to recount that with simple facts.
OR - please post a link for me to see this television broadcast of Sirhan B. Sirhan shooting RFK.
The police confiscated and never returned the photos from the camera man facing Sirhan as the shooting started. He was right behind RFK, and as RFK dropped he was still taking photos facing Sirhan. Those photos are gone now.
We're not supposed to have to prove our innocence, the state is supposed to prove guilt.
Yeah, but that's just sooooo last centuries Supreme Court.....Sorry to say, but, as a nation we have definitely LOST IT!!
@Jmarc Not all of us do. we will challenge the system with this evidence of being barbaric and find solutions to fight for change. We can not even get traffic lights on dangerous corners without a number of people dying at that spot first. That's how it works here. No one takes time to analyze if the spot maybe dangerous, then put the traffic light up to see how many dangers have been avoided.
A lot of people in the state of Georgia disagree with the murder of Troy Davis & now have to set out to fight for change in his name. Many Georgians do not understand the decisions made our courts nor agree with the system's belief that it can not make mistakes. Therefore, innocent folks can die here without any substantial evidence of Guilt. What sways some is that a crime has been committed and someone has to pay. They go about making the best argument to prove their notion right. The best argument wins out sometimes, not guilt or innocents sometimes. That is the gamble citizens take when we go to court.
I hope that shed some light on how these things can be done "in the name of the state, then go about business as usual"
"sham of a mockery of a travesty" Woodie Allen
Georgia may have killed an innocent man.
Laura, thanks for the link and information.
I spent a little time this morning reading articles and even a court document, granted without knowing everything about the case, there does seem to be concerns worthy of consideration.
Still a little puzzled why more news agency weren't giving much more than saying 9 or 7 witnesses recanted. After reading, I see there were 34 witnesses at the original trial (maybe the 9 were the only eye witnesses?). Anyway, I definitely appreciate the link.
I believe and understand the rationale behind capital punishment and, given 100% certainty of guilt, in some cases it is appropriate. Our ability to actual carry that part out has been more than questionable.
Even if there was 100 eye witness testimonies,when did eye witness testimony become the highest form of evidence to put someone to death without a weapon or CSI evidence?
Yes, I believe it was 9 eye-witnesses. But flyday brings up a good point. 60 Minutes a couple of years ago did a GREAT piece about the flaws of eye-witness testimony. There's a bias that comes into play when looking at lineups or someone in a court room. There's a tendency to assume the guilty one must be in front of them somewhere. There was this amazing case where a woman who was raped accused the wrong man because he looked just like the person who actually had raped her. He was in jail for like 20 years before they used forensic evidence to find out they got the wrong guy. Eye witness testimony is questionable enough BEFORE they all recant their stories.
According to The Innocence Project, fully 75% of witness testimony is Wrong! In this case, the police brought all the witnesses together at the crime scene, and had them talking to each other about what they saw! They also showed photos of Mr. Davis alone, Not along side other photos! One witness was nearly 100 feet away, and it's been proven that you cannot make out the details of someones face at that distance. There was doubt here. They say justice is blind, well I guess she's deaf too.
thank you, amy. :)
Amy, please document this point you make:
I believe I am correct in saying at least one of these witnesses new Mr. Davis so no photo would have been needed, not sure if it was more than one. But, I look forward to reading more about this point you make.
I haven't read the transcript of the trial but you are making many assumptions. If multiple eyewitnesses identify two people present, one in red shirt the other in yellow, and this fact is established. Then an eyewitness 100 feet away could easily say, "I saw the one in the yellow shirt point and shot a gun at the victim." So yes, a witness 100 feet away can be very valuable.
I await the source requested above.
Thanks.
Flyday and Longhorn, I wasn't trying to vouch for the reliability of eyewitness testimony. I does have great value when paired with other evidence. I do not think Troy Davis has ever denied being present when the crime occurred, only that he did not commit it.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people believe that if the police arrest a person, that person must be guilty. I've personally run into this in my many hours of courtroom work. I have heard "witnesses" knowingly lie "under oath". the human beast is a complex entity in which we never know the inner workings.
The hearing had been ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the end, the federal judge ruled that Mr. Davis had failed to prove his innocence. "Not all recantations are created equal," he wrote.
Since when in this country do people have to prove their innocence??
That is one of the worst travesties of this case. A federal judge who is supposed to be versed in our laws and constitution, completely ignored them with his opinion -- hope it is not precedent-setting. It has always been held that a person's guilt must be proved, not a person's innocence. How could this judge's outrageous decision be upheld and not reversed?
It appears every level of this process wanted to protect the previous levels below. Mr. Davis paid with his life to protect the integrity of law enforcement and our judicial system because neither could not admit to mistakes, coercion of witnesses, bias, prejudice, etc.
You are confusing two stages in our judicial system. Mr. Davis was proven guilty, that was the standard at his trial.
Now, I like you, was a little surprised by this ruling late, late in the appeal process. I would have thought it was a much lesser standard. Not sure of all the intermediate steps before this ruling though. My guess would be there had been multiple boards/panels/judges/etc. who had reviewed and confirmed the conviction.
Once you have been "found" guilty by a jury the burden of proof shifts to the defense to get that guilty verdict overturned. It's really sad but even some people once DNA evidence exonerates them still have a difficult time getting their conviction overturned. I was out raged when I found this out a few years ago, but that's our judicial system..."the court is infallible, juries are always right" but juries don't get to see all the facts and mistakes are made. We really need an overhaul in both our courts and jail systems.
In the criminal justice system, many years ago. When we started treating poor defendants differantly than "well off" defendants. When in many states eliminated the "public defenders" offices. In OR you need to prove to the court you can't afford an attorney. If granted, an attorney is appointed to you. That attorney has no choice and may already have all the "paying" clients their office can handle. The court appointed client recieves the minimum amount of time and effort that will satisfy the court. The client is ordered to pay the fee's of said attorney through a fine.
There are cases that the defense attorney read the file. That's the extent of his defense. Advise the client to plead guilty and charge $200. That's all the court requires for a "satisfactory" defense.
Ever notice in most TV police peograms, they ask about an alibi? If you are a suspect, you had better have one. There is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" anymore. We have grown into a police nation. We have become a vindictive society. We have become to lazy to get involved.
This was not the original trial. This was an Evidentiary Hearing to determine if Davis had grounds for a new trial. He was already found guilty. During the Appeals process the burden shifts to the defense to prove innocence.
I wonder if Troy was strapped to that gurney for four hours. I wonder if his family has enough money to have a funeral or will he be buried in a potter's field. I live in Savannah and I am sickened by the parole board, Larry Chisholm the DA,and the people who believe revenge is justice.
Failed to prove his innocence? WHAT? Since when is the burden on the accused? The burden is on the prosecutor to prove his guilt. When they don't have a murder weapon and almost all of their witnesses say they were threatened or coerced, you can't reasonably say guilt was proven. This process is absurd.
When will we look again at our death penalty that puts innocent people to death or potentially puts innocent people to death and realize that IS cruel and unusual?
Since when do you nedd to PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE!? What is the gain?
Apparently they say capital punishment is all part of vindication, possibly even justice. I am against the death penalty; so I optimistically say the gain will tragically be, to shed more light on the perils of capital punishment in modern society. Hopefully this lesson can be a beacon or harbinger of a societal evolution to come. (Like don’t ask don’t tell!) Just hopefully, “What’s the gain?” will be the spark that ends of all this death by the state nonsense; or at least state death from only witness accounts.
The hearing had been ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the end, the federal judge ruled that Mr. Davis had failed to prove his innocence. ???
Isn't the point of the JUDGE, JURY, AND PROSECUTOR to "PROVE HIS GUILT"?
I thought you were innocent until PROVEN guilty in this country.
That is what some of us are wondering, when did it change? When did the ideal of innocent until proven guilty get thrown out by our country?
Sept 22, 2011...For all we stand for in the world, it makes me sad to be an American today regarding the execution of Troy Davis in Georgia, 'THE SOUTH' in which so many uncertainties in the truth became a circus case surrounding a man
s life.
The TRMS Blog did not tell you the whole story of D.D. Collins. Please take the time to read Associated Press article by Allen G. Breed in the Seattle PI. In the article Professor Mears of the John Marshall Law School reviewed the transcripts of the trial and here is what it says: "
Darrell Collins, who was with Davis and Coles the night of the shooting, signed an affidavit in 2002 saying police pressured him into pointing the finger at Davis. But the trial transcript shows he'd made that same assertion on the witness stand. The jury heard Collins back off a statement he'd given to police implicating Davis in the shooting.
"I told you that I didn't see Troy shoot at them, or shoot that night, and I didn't see him with a gun that night," Collins testified.
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Troy-Davis-How-did-we-get-here-2182568.php#ixzz1YhAZwyzn
I am not making a judgment on the death penalty but I believe that you should show all the facts. In this manner people can make an educated decision.
For me, this case is merely emblematic of the reason we shouldn't have the death penalty. I don't know enough about the case to proclaim his guilt or innocence and I wouldn't presume to say either way. But we shouldn't be executing people. We have an imperfect system that puts innocent people in jail with enough frequency that taking a life is too big a risk. If there's ANY chance we're putting innocent people to death, we shouldn't be doing it. It's too risky and it's just wrong.
I respect your point of view and opposing the death penalty is noble. Our jury system provides for the conviction of a criminal charge on the basis of "beyond a reasonable doubt" not under "beyond any doubt" If we were to use that standard they would be very few convictions. All judicial systems are imperfect. We try to set up systems that protect the innocent at the cost of allowing guilty people to beat the system.
this country disgusts me
Peremptively, I would note that am totally opposed to the death penalty. The reason why the witnesses recantations are viewed with a jaundiced eye is because people change testimony for reasons other than the truth. If the witness recants shortly after testifying, then there is more credibility attached to that witness. But if the witness waits years, then it is suspect because the witness may have changed because someone got to the witness and memories tend to fade with time. Once a defendant is convicted, judges rarely second guess reasonable doubt which is why the federal court ruled as it did. We do not know how credible those witnesses were in federal court. It is easy to look at the fact that they recanted and second guess judges and juries. But there are more factors that goes into a judge's decision and that includes the credibility of a witness.
You gotta love a system where the credibility of a witness is enough to put a person to death but not enough to save him from death. Brilliant.
That was sarcasm for those who may wonder.
@80sGirl-2483822
You must believe that everyone tells the truth in court all the time.
Sarcasm works both ways.
Of course they don't. That's why eyewitness testimony is the least credible method of arriving at the truth and should not be the basis for a death-penalty decision. It's not because people set out to lie but study after study after study have shown that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.
That's the point I was making. You said yourself that the credibility of the witness has to be taken into consideration when deciding a death penalty reversal. So why was the credibility of the witness good enough to decide ON a death penalty decision in the first place?
Credibility of a witness is always a part of the decision making process including the hearing in federal court. You are trying to attribute credibility to the witnesses who recanted just because they recanted. That is not how the legal system works.
No, I'm not. I give up. You seem determined to misread my question.
mike...
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
what 80sgirl is saying...
basically if the credibility of the witness is ruined by recanting, then the credibility of their testimony is also be ruined..
"basically if the credibility of the witness is ruined by recanting, then the credibility of their testimony is also be ruined.."
You have misread what I stated. A witness' testimony is not necessarily ruined by recanting the testimony. The timing of the recant is a factor. If it is recanted shortly after the initial testimony, then it is not as suspect than if the recant comes years later. Most witnesses sound credible up to the point of cross examination, e.g. Mark Furhman at the OJ trial. Credibility is always a factor even when the testimony is recanted. We don't know what happened on cross examination of the witnesses who recanted in the federal court. Some witnesses recant because of threats, money or even social pressure.
There is a difference between an eyewitness picking someone out and saying, "he was there, he did it," and one saying "the person that has admitted he was there, I saw him do it." I believe the latter is applicable in the Davis case.
@RobDon
I don't know which applies nor do you. But even assuming the latter, if multiple witnesses said he admitted it, that is pretty strong evidence unless they are impeached on cross exam.
i know what you're saying, but if the credibility is ruined by recanting so late, then the credibility of the person is...ruined, including the original statement...no?
this is what 80sgirl is saying, and i have to agree.
if the judges are dismissing the recantations - that the witnesses new testimony is discreditable, i would assume it's because the source is looked at as being discreditable. swayed...
if the witness is swayed now, could it not be true that the witness could have been swayed then...
credibility...if ruined now, makes people think of the credibility of crucial points and puts doubt especially on the past.
There's a difference between the credibility of the person and the validity of what they say. Most people do not lie 100% of the time, far from it. So, just because someone lies at one point does not mean everything they have ever said is not valid. Suspect? Yes.
My understanding is that the recantations came 15 years or so after their testimony. All of them just suddenly realized they lied? At the same time?
The original testimony is not necessarily ruined because a witness changes his testimony. Credibility is always an issue at all stages of legal proceedings. The original testimony is contemporaneous and is considered more reliable while the recanted testimony comes years later for some cases. That is why recanted testimony is highly suspect as it was in this case.
"Suspect? Yes."
That's enough for me not to put someone to death.
What's being said here is that if someone recants, they have admitted to being a liar. They're either a liar at the original testimony or a liar at the recantation. But they are a liar, they have lied in court. And if we don't know which is truth and which is a lie...well, it's time to unstrap the restraints.
Life in prison is more of a punishment anyway.
Whatever happened to the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"?! Then again this is Georgia, one of those bible-belt, itinerant states that still believes "Jim Crow" should be alive & well!!
The truth is it was a black man that shot a white cop - that's all the people of Georgia understand! That he "might" be innocent, totally not relevant!!
I live in virginia and that you are so right and that is it and that is all!!!!!!!
You should not assume everyone in the South is racist and that the defendant was innocent. Racism exists in every part of the country and your statements are broad generalizations without any basis in fact as it relates to this case. Also, most defendants claim they are innocent. We would not need trials if every defendant pleaded guilty. Your statements are a rush to judgement and a visceral reaction to the reported facts. But you do not know every facet of the case and unless you were present for the testimony, you have opinions without any foundation other than generalizations.
I don't "assume" that everyone is a racist, but I do believe in what someone once said that "all it takes is for good people to do NOTHING for evil to exist"! I don't believe that all "Southerners" are racist, but there are still enough racists to continue to keep down those "good people". And while Mr. Davis may not have been innocent, he wasn't "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" - the fact that once again pleas for clemency weren't even heard - just one more nail in the wall!!
We have a lot of minority defendants in Chicago and we are the most segregated city in the US. There are no more or less white people who are prejudiced than those in South. Every assumption people make about the South being prejudiced equally applies here.
Mike, prejudice, discrimination, rampant ignorance - they're all over - just look at the sheeple up in arms regarding "President Obama" - Kenyan born, Muslim, etc.! So much for that whole "post-racial" nonsense the media kept hyping! The one difference between Northern and Southern - at least "in the south you know (cause they will tell you) where you stand, in the north it's a bit more "subtle" - unless you're not paying attention! And that kind of depends on which part of the "north" that you're in!
The discrimination begins at the arrest stage and continues on until sentencing. However, I would note that the rising number of people convicted of felonies also reflects our society continues to make more new crimes or make a misdemeanor a felony. We have gone overboard with all these new "crimes" that states have added to their books. Some of this is just overkill, e.g. smoking in a no smoking area is now a misdemeanor in many places when the offense is a petit offense which is a step down from misdemeanors. Various safety laws fall under this overkill. But race is a factor in the severity of charges that are brought by prosecutors.
"But race is a factor in the severity of charges that are brought by prosecutors."
And don't forget MONEY! If you have it, it doesn't matter what color you are, if you don't, you're screwed, period!! So much for "equal justice under the law".....
Again I say you can tell how you will be treated by the way our PRESIDENT and his FAMILY are so I expected nothing to change (SADLY) for Mr. Davis this is now and always have been in my opinion a very hypocritical country. What happened to in GOD we TRUST GOD had nothing to do with Mr. Dvais demise and what about the officers family they still are left with out certainty!!
Better that one hundred guilty go free than one innocent be executed. There really is no such thing as "reasonable doubt," especially the way that courts are manipulated in this country. There should be no death penalty, period. If that means that there are a few hundred more people in jail long term, it is worth it to protect the innocent who are regularly wrongly convicted. It may not be a large percentage, but one is too many. Executing someone will not bring back the victims. Our courts should not be about revenge, but about justice. If people are worried about jail overcrowding, decriminalize marijuana and that will free up thousands of jail beds nation wide.
MS Zora that is the truth and it is suppose to set you free!1
Wilhemina, I believe you are miss quoting scripture here unless you are referencing another source.
Jesus was talking about his teachings, he himself. He also referred to himself as "the way, the truth, and the life." Now you can argue with this teaching but to quote it to mean something else is dishonest.
You are innocent until proven guilty, in Georgia a man is dead today because he didn't prove himself innocent enough.
This is what it means to live in the United States today, you can be accused of murder, have almost all of the witnesses recant and still be put to death, or you could be President and send hundreds to die in a purposeless war and go live on a cozy ranch afterward. There is no justice here and you know what? This can't be called freedom either.
How can we hold ourselves 'above' other countries who have capital punishment? I'd say that the majority of 'civilized' nations who do not allow capital punishment have taken the morally High Ground, and realize that is it not only the 100% surety of determining ABSOLUTE guilt of the prisoner, but also the lingering question about this whole concept of revenge, which seems to be the ointment drawing the flies in the first place. America is a violent country,no argument about that, and its' still the 'wild west' out there, a nation of wannabee cowboys at the OK Corral, sticking to the 'bad guys; "read that as people of color, poorer people who cannot mount attack against their accusers, blame poverty, blame District Attorneys lining up for that big job w benefits and power. I blame people in power who don't have the cojones to LISTEN to the accused with unpredjudicial ears. We do what 'we' want precisely because we ar that holier than thou group of other countries who actually GOT IT RIGHT and stopped the whole process of revenge killing.My god we are such a tribal knee jerk society I am just so ashamed of us.
Now that its' done, wonder how the Judge, the Supremes, the DA and the prison staff are sleeping knowing perhaps, just perhaps an innocent man was murdered by The State
Change these barbaric laws. They diminish us as a people. There is no dignity in revenge. RIP Mr Davis, know that your name will be around a LONG time in this discussion which in the end may pull the US's head out from it's ass, where is seems to reside most of the time.
You think the United States is barbaric? Then go live in the middle east kids! You blink wrong and you're dead. Yes, there are issues with our justice system, and there always have been. But for the most part, it works. In another country, you steal, they cut your hand off. You rape, they cut your penis off. Want to live in those countries??? Let's keep things in perspective. And for those who say that blacks have no voice, I say, where are the Rosa Park's of your generation??? Get off your ass, get an education and make change happen! Blame, blame, blame. That's all I hear. Stop the blame game that our politicians are so famous for and do something about it! Make your voice heard! It can be done! Progress takes time but it is not futile. If more people actually learned about our constitution and how it works, we could make change happen. But the average citizen is so ignorant to how our government works, it's ridiculous. Get yourself some knowledge and stop blaming others for your problems. Blame yourself for not getting involved. Change doesn't happen by osmosis. It happens by people sacrificing and taking a stand. You can't fix things with rioting, violence, and ignorant behavior. Change happens when people give a crap and do something with their lives besides sitting around and watching reality shows. Wake up America. You DO have choices here!
change happens when you care enough to stand up. yes, education is the more educated way....but i think the first step is to get involved and care...
talk...read...investigate...and stand up.
not everyone has to have a college degree to be educated and have a voice. anyone who is standing up against this atrocity is voicing their self...hopefully educating their self in the same token.
yet so many are standing up and telling anyone who is black and standing against the execution that they are biased - i've seen it.
blame game...i would have to say is a multiple cross road.
putting blame where it is due can also lead to change in the system. speak up and speak out...even if it's putting blame.
You had me for part of this, but rape (at least a man raping a girl) will at most lead to paying a tiny bit of money to the girl's FATHER in the Muslim countries I presume you're talking about. Assuming your family/clan doesn't beat or kill some or all of the girl's family if they so much as peep. Rosa Parks was a cleaning lady (Thank you Sister Rosa!). And the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's probably would never have gotten much of anywhere if enough WHITE people hadn't stood up and screamed "NO MORE" and marched and helped because they saw injustice and despised it- the black population in this country simply did not have enough power and resources needed to force a change on an unwilling country. Yes, people should educate themselves unceasingly, but BLAME where BLAME is due- it's difficult if not impossible to solve a problem if you don't identify it and its causes.