From: dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK (Dunstan_Vavasour)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: new SC ruling
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:19:35 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:dunstan@gec-epl.co.uk>
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Please excuse the contribution from a non American, but my feelings on
this are pretty strong.

Kerry:
>Hi, y'all:
>This comes from this morning's paper, with a Washington (AP) by-line.  On
>Monday, the SC said that Texas may execute a man who claims to have new
>evidence of his innocence, "ruling that inmates convicted in state courts
>almost always are barred from contesting guilt in a federal appeal."

I would accept this if the state courts had acceptable procedures.
Removing the possibility of proving innocence, or even reasonable
doubt even fifty years after an execution, let alone before it does
not, to my mind, constitute reasonable procedure.

>"'A claim of actual innocence is not intself a constitutional claim,' Chief
>Justice Rehnquist said in a 6-3 ruling.  Executive clemency is the fail-
>safe method to keep the truly innocent from being put to death, he wrote in
>upholding a JTexas man's murder conviction and death sentence."

If a provable claim of innocence is not constitutionally admissible
then the constitution needs changing. What is the purpose of a
constitution if it does not allow federal authorities to prevent the
execution of an innocent ?

By the same token, why can't a federal prosecution for murder be
mounted against state authorities who knowingly execute an innocent ?

As regards executive clemency, failsafe is exectly what it is not, as
was proven by the case of Roger Coleman (sp?) in Virginia.
>
>"The ruling limited federal judges' roles in sparing innocent people from
>death.  But left undecided was whether the Constitution allows the
>execution of someone who can prove true innocence."

See above. A constitution which allows this stinks. I hope that
Clinton realised that he pledged to uphold the continuing execution of
innocents last Wednesday.
>
>Now, the background goes something like this.  A guy named Herrera was
>sentenced to death for a 1981 killing.  State and federal courts upheld his
>conviction and sentencing.  In 1990, he filed a new appeal saying his
>brother actually had been the murderer; his brother's son swore he
>witnessed the murder, and three other men say the brother confessed to them
>.  Unfortunately for Herrera, Texas law requires that new evidence be
>presented within 30 days of a trial, and so state courts refused to hear
>the new claim of innocence.  A federal judge granted a new hearing, but the
>5th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals reversed.

Clearly the Texas law for presenting new evidence is flawed. Does this
mean that if I wanted to frame someone for a crime that I committed
that my story only has to hold until thirty days after the trial ?
>
>"The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court.  Rehnquist said federal
>courts can hear such appeals only if a criminal conviction 'offends some
>principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscinece of our
>people as to be ranked as fundamental.'  Herrera's case did not reach that
>standard, Rehnquist said.  But he said Herrera may seek clemency from the
>governor, and noted that all 36 states with death penalty laws also allow
>such clemency."

Well I think the SC's ruling speaks for itself. Either they misjudge
the traditions and conscience of the American people, or the American
people are sick and depraved.
>
>Blackmun issued a verbal dissent, saying "'The execution of a person who
>can show that he is innocent comes periolously close to simple murder.'  If
>a defendant's rights depend on a governor's decision on clemency, Blackmun
>said, 'then we no longer live under a government of laws.'"

Agreed. Governors' clemency is neither the rule of law nor a failsafe
mechanism.
>
>What do y'all think?  If appeals of innocence can't be heard in federal
>court, where *can* they be heard?  If innocence is not a fundamental
>prinicple of justice, what is?  *What the hell is going on*????
>
>Kerry

Please excuse the vitriol. It is not directed at the American people
who are, in general, a fine bunch, but at those responsible for a
legal system which obviously stinks.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU