On August 17 the United States Supreme Court ordered a new evi­den­tiary hear­ing for Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis, whose case has drawn world­wide atten­tion because of new evi­dence of his pos­si­ble inno­cence. For the first time in near­ly 50 years, the Court has favor­ably respond­ed to a peti­tion direct­ed to them, rather than as an appeal from oth­er courts. With only two Justices writ­ing in dis­sent, the Court ordered the low­er fed­er­al court to hear Davis’ evi­dence: ​“The District Court should receive tes­ti­mo­ny and make find­ings of fact as to whether evi­dence that could not have been obtained at the time of tri­al clear­ly estab­lish­es petitioner’s innocence.” 

Since Davis’ ini­tial con­vic­tion in 1991, sev­en of nine eye­wit­ness­es against him have recant­ed their tes­ti­mo­ny. Justice Stevens, con­cur­ring with Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, wrote, ​“The sub­stan­tial risk of putting an inno­cent man to death clear­ly pro­vides an ade­quate jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for hold­ing an evi­den­tiary hear­ing.” He fur­ther respond­ed to Justice Scalia’s dis­sent, which would have denied Davis’ request on nar­row legal grounds, by strong­ly reject­ing the notion that the law allows the exe­cu­tion of an inno­cent per­son: “[I]magine a peti­tion­er in Davis’s sit­u­a­tion who pos­sess­es new evi­dence con­clu­sive­ly and defin­i­tive­ly prov­ing, beyond any scin­til­la of doubt, that he is an inno­cent man. The dissent’s rea­son­ing would allow such a peti­tion­er to be put to death nonethe­less. The Court cor­rect­ly refus­es to endorse such rea­son­ing.” An ami­cus brief had been filed on behalf of Davis by for­mer mem­bers of the judi­cia­ry and law enforce­ment offi­cials, includ­ing for­mer Georgia Congressman Bob Barr and the for­mer direc­tor of the FBI William S. Sessions.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the rul­ing. Justice Thomas joined Justice Scalia’s dis­sent. Troy Davis had sub­mit­ted a peti­tion direct­ly with the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas cor­pus. If ulti­mate­ly grant­ed, his con­vic­tion could be over­turned and he could be set free.

(Sources: J. Holland, ​“Supreme Court says Georgia man should get hear­ing,” Associated Press, August 17, 2009; Read the Court’s deci­sion: In re Troy Anthony Davis, No. 08 – 1443, U.S. (Aug. 17, 2009) (Stevens, J., con­cur­ring); Scotusblog​.com). See Innocence and read the Amicus Brief of judges and pros­e­cu­tors.

Tags
Citation Guide