On October 11, 2024 the Embassies of France and Germany host­ed a dis­cus­sion on the ques­tion of inno­cence and the death penal­ty at the res­i­dence of the French Ambassador in Washington, D.C. Panelists includ­ed Herman Lindsey, a death row exoneree and Executive Director of Witness to Innocence; Vanessa Potkin, Director of Special Litigation at the Innocence Project; and Emmjolee Mendoza Waters, Director of the Death Penalty Abolition Program at Catholic Mobilizing Network. The approx­i­mate­ly 75 peo­ple who attend­ed the event includ­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tives from sev­er­al embassies as well as mem­bers of the pub­lic. The con­ver­sa­tion was mod­er­at­ed by Robin Maher, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center. 

Ms. Potkin dis­cussed her work on behalf of sev­er­al death-sen­tenced pris­on­ers with cred­i­ble evi­dence of inno­cence. They include Marcellus Williams, who was exe­cut­ed in Missouri on September 24th, and Robert Roberson, a death-sen­tenced man who faces exe­cu­tion in Texas on October 17th, despite expert tes­ti­mo­ny and evi­dence that no crime occurred in his case. She described some of the many chal­lenges that inno­cent pris­on­ers face on appeal, includ­ing the unwill­ing­ness of pros­e­cu­tors to admit mis­takes and their focus on ​“win­ning” instead of secur­ing a just result. Other pros­e­cu­tors, she explained, oppose DNA test­ing, and many courts refuse to order access to DNA test­ing, deny­ing pris­on­ers a mean­ing­ful oppor­tu­ni­ty to devel­op life-sav­ing evi­dence. Ms. Potkin not­ed that even when so-called ​“pro­gres­sive” pros­e­cu­tors have sup­port­ed new tri­als or sen­tences in inno­cence cas­es, they have some­times been over­ruled by oth­er state offi­cials. As an exam­ple, she cit­ed the inter­fer­ence by Missouri’s Attorney General to pre­vent a plea deal, sup­port­ed by the local pros­e­cu­tor, that would have removed Mr. Williams from death row.

Mr. Lindsey, who was released from Florida’s death row fif­teen years ago, spoke about the last­ing trau­ma of being wrong­ful­ly accused and then con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death. He said juries must be bet­ter informed before they are asked to make dif­fi­cult life and death deci­sions in cap­i­tal cas­es. Mr. Lindsey also spoke emo­tion­al­ly about being ​“grate­ful” for his expe­ri­ence and feel­ing ​“cho­sen” to share his expe­ri­ence with the pub­lic so that they can bet­ter under­stand the plight of inno­cent peo­ple who are sen­tenced to death.

Ms. Mendoza Waters described recent changes in pub­lic opin­ion and declin­ing sup­port for the death penal­ty. She not­ed that the sto­ries of inno­cent peo­ple on death row are attract­ing increas­ing atten­tion and result­ing in greater pub­lic engage­ment. More than 1.5 mil­lion peo­ple signed peti­tions urg­ing clemen­cy for Marcellus Williams, and Ms. Mendoza Waters said that the unusu­al atten­tion his case received cre­at­ed an oppor­tu­ni­ty for peo­ple to under­stand the seri­ous flaws in use of the death penal­ty. She also described the death penal­ty as a fun­da­men­tal right to life issue, and not­ed that Pope Francis recent­ly tweet­ed the posi­tion of the Catholic Church that “[t]he right to life is threat­ened in those places where the death penal­ty is legal.”

Questions from the audi­ence includ­ed inquiries about what reforms would best pro­tect inno­cent peo­ple, and the effect of elec­toral pol­i­tics on death penal­ty out­comes. The Death Penalty Information Center recent­ly released a report on the lat­ter sub­ject, ​“Lethal Election: How the U.S. Electoral Politics Increases the Arbitrariness of the Death Penalty.” 

Tags
Citation Guide