Comments on: Bob Barr: Georgia may be about to execute an innocent man

By: Reformed Bulldog Fan

Reformed Bulldog Fan — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:35:09 +0000

This trail is too flawed. The jurors made their decision is good conscience, but now the “witnesses” are recanting. There must be a new trial to try to get at the truth. Executing this man would be a terrible injustice with so many questions unanswered. I, too, served on a murder jury. It was a difficult and very stressful process. Juries do not take this kind of thing lightly. If I had served on this jury with so many questions coming out now, I would want the state to retry the man. If the next jury deems him guilty, then so be it.

By: herbK

herbK — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:32:28 +0000

“In their eyes the more dead cops the better”

A dead cop is no more special than a dead citizen. Cops are NOT your friends, cops are not
special. They knew the turf when they took the ‘oath’.

By: however...

however... — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:39:38 +0000

Andy, glad to hear that you had jury experience. It’s reassuring that people are willing to do their civic duty, both 20 years ago and today. The point earlier was that it is indeed difficult to strip humans of their passions, prejudices, predispositions, and biases. Rules that exclude evidence (for example hearsay rules, or a judge’s determination that something is more prejudicial than probative) automatically prevent a jury from seeing “all the evidence,” on the basis of one person’s opinion, without knowledge of the jury. Perjured or incorrect evidence can easily yield the wrong result. Again, see vacated findings of guilt for what used to be a capital crime, rape. And, given that other posters have alluded to the movies, “Tom” Robinson was convicted despite the blatantly perjured testimony of Mayella Ewell, to cite a classic. The only thing worse than killing a police officer is having his death go to kill a potential innocent he was sworn to protect.

By: theidahokid

theidahokid — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:43:29 +0000

Hang him, let god and the devil decide where he goes, they know the truth.

By: Fishawk

Fishawk — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:19:28 +0000

No one of good conscience wants to exonerate the killer of a policeman or otherwise. The truth is that so many people have recanted their testimony and so much that has not been revealed that this man deserves a new trial. If he”s convicted after that so be it. He deserves an unbiased fair trial without a rush to justice.

By: lazarus

lazarus — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:32:46 +0000

I think I’ll wander over to Marks grave and see if I can get him a new hearing. I bet he’d like to see his son again. But then the Ajc has never cared about Mark. In their eyes the more dead cops the betterEnter your comments here

By: i'm innocent

i'm innocent — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:22:07 +0000

thats what everyone in prison says…only Andy Dufrain was innocent.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:31:27 +0000

Having served on a capital murder case, 20 years ago, I think I am able to offer a little insight that most have never experienced. Each jury member was truly independent of each other and formed their opinions without regard to pressures from the group. It is difficult to believe that the jury was biased in any manner.

By: herbK

herbK — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:51:43 +0000

I detest john lewis, but if 7 of 9 witnesses recanted their testimony, georgia, in good conscious cannot execute Troy Davis. Although, that has never stopped georgia or texas. I say he gets another trial.

By: however...

however... — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:52:16 +0000

It would be difficult to find 12 unbiased jurors, one unbiased journalist, nine unbiased members of the SCOTUS. Assuming, arguendo, that 12 people and a judge could displace all possible bias and prejudice, would it be possible that they could come the wrong conclusion based on perjured evidence (in this case testimony)? How about the Duke lacrosse trial? What if that had gone to trial and the “unbiased” jurors had not been allowed to see the exculpatory evidence Nifong (the prosecutor) tried so hard to keep from the public and potential jurors? They wouldn’t have seen “all the evidence.” Never assume that juries always get it right (cf all the rape convictions that have been overturned via the “Innocence Project” and similar efforts), that eyewitnesses are infallible, and that our competitive, adversarial legal system works every time. Wouldn’t it be better to spend some extra money to make sure an innocent person doesn’t get all crispy?