The Troy Anthony Davis Death Penalty Case – What do You Think?
The criminal law blogosphere has been discussing the case of Troy Anthony Davis – a Georgia man who was convicted of murdering a Savannah police officer in 1989. Mr. Davis was convicted of this crime based on testimony from multiple eyewitnesses and was sentenced to death. Just go to Technorati.com and enter “Troy Anthony Davis.”
Recently, Mr. Davis’ attorneys filed an appeal to both the Georgia Supreme Court as well as the United States Supreme Court arguing that the conviction should be overturned because several of the eyewitnesses have “recanted” their testimony. The attorneys argue that to execute a defendant with a “strong claim of innocence” would be a violation of the Bill of Rights prohibition against “cruel and unusual” punishment.
My colleague, blogger Paul Kennedy of Houston, weighs in on this controversy with a blog post entitled “Its not Cruel and Unusual to Execute an Innocent Man.” Paul argues:
that just because a citizen was given a fair trial doesn’t mean that the verdict is correct? When it comes to deciding whether or not a fellow citizen’s life is to be taken away by the state, the very least we can do is make certain that the state is killing the right person.
On the other hand, Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial writer Jim Wooten says this:
Before you buy-in to the Troy Anthony Davis PR campaign, go to the source. Read for yourself the Georgia Supreme Court decision handed down March 17 that dealt with quality of the alleged recantations in the murder of Savannah police officer Mark Allen MacPhail. Cut out the spin. Read Justice Harold Melton’s majority opinion.
There have been many studies which demonstrate that eyewitness testimony can sometimes be seriously flawed. Often our memories of what we genuinely believed that we saw are simply incorrect. On the other hand, eyewitness testimony has long been accepted by our courts as an acceptable basis for finding criminal liability.
Like many of my fellow bloggers, I am concerned with the prospect of putting an innocent man to death. On the other hand, I think that the family of the slain Savannah police officer does deserve justice.
I encourage you to take a look at the Georgia Supreme Court opinion. Here are some of the facts that are not in dispute:
In the early morning hours of August 19, 1989, Troy Davis was at a pool hall with his friends Sylvester Coles and Darrell Collins. Nearby a homeless man named Larry Young was exiting a convenience store with a six pack of beer. Coles approached Young to ask for a beer but Young refused the request. Coles then followed Young, cursing and screaming at him. Davis and Coles circled around a nearby building and together with Coles, surrounded Young. Davis then pistol whipped Young, severely injuring him. An off duty police officer, Mark MacPhail observed the altercation and approached Davis and Coles. Officer MacPhail was subseqently shot and died on the scene. Davis says that Cole was the triggerm, and Coles points the finger at Davis.
Earlier that night a man named Michael Cooper was shot at a party. Several eyewitnesses named Troy Davis as the shooter. Bullets removed from Cooper’s body during treatment matched bullets removed from Officer MacPhail’s body.
During the investigation, several witnesses were interviewed by the police and stated that Davis had confessed the murder of Officer MacPhail. Larry Young identified Davis as the person who struck him on the head with a pistol. Darrell Collins, who had run from the immediate area of the Young-Davis/Coles altercation, testified that the person who struck MacPhail also shot him.
Subsequent to the trial that resulted in Davis’ conviction, several of the witnesses noted above changed their stories.
Davis was convicted of murder, not for being a really bad person. A jury heard the evidence presented, including the witness testimony and concluded that Davis was the murderer.
I encourage you to read the heartfelt opinions of fellow bloggers who sincerely oppose the death penalty and who stand for the principle that the state needs a great deal of certainty before taking a convicted criminal’s life. You will note that few, if any, of these bloggers report the undisputed factual background of this case. Does it matter? Should the Georgia courts ordered a new trial? Does the recitation of facts shapre your opinion? What do you think?
Filed under Punishment issues, Trial issues by on Oct 18th, 2008. Comment. 
Leave a Comment
Pings on The Troy Anthony Davis Death Penalty Case – What do You Think?
Comments on The Troy Anthony Davis Death Penalty Case – What do You Think?
If the wrong person is punished, irreversibly, will justice have been served? Life without parole (LWOP)exists in Georgia. The advantage of LWOP in a case like this is that if innocence is established the prisoner can be released. You can’t release an innocent person from the grave. If DNA were available and relevant in this case, the innocence question would be easier to resolve. But, as in over 85% of all homicides, it isn’t. As you stated, the major cause of wrongful conviction is eyewitness error (and, sometimes, self serving lies.) When a life is at stake shouldn’t the standard of guilt be “beyond any doubt”?
Life without parole is arguably a harsher sentence. Although deciding what to do should not be based on costs, Georgians must surely realize, now, that the death penalty is more expensive, much more than LWOP- mostly because of the legal costs of the upfront part ot the process- pre trial and trial level.
My sympathy goes to the MacPhail family. I hope that they will find peace.
Susan makes some very good points and her analysis is both thoughtful and tolerant of both sides of this difficult question. Personally, I can see both sides of the argument.
My friend,
You are completely mistaken when you suggest the facts are beyond dispute. No where in the Georgia Supreme Court decision (or anywhere else) does the court say that those facts are beyond dispute. What it says is
“The evidence at trial authorized the jury to find the following:”
All that sentence means is that there was some evidence in the record to support a jury finding on those facts. It hardly means that it was UNDISPUTED. Indeed, much of what you wrote was disputed then and is disputed now.
Here are the undisputed facts – both then and now.
Redd Coles was a known neighborhood thug who always carried a gun, usually a .38 caliber revolver. On that night he started hassling a homeless guy (Young) for his beer. When Young refused, Redd threatened him, “You don’t know me. I’ll shoot you.” Within seconds, Young was pistol-whipped and MacPhail was shot.
Yes, Troy Davis and DD Collins stood nearby and watched Redd’s fight with Young unfold. But every precipient witness testified that neither Davis nor Collins ever said a word to Young or had any interest in his beer.
The evidence used at this emotionally-charged, high-profile trial was inherently unreliable for these reasons.
Decades of scientific studies confirm that distance, lighting, duration of crime, weapon-focus, other race effect, etc. can impede ability to encode sufficient detail to make an accurate identification later. Moreover, a witness’ memory of the assailant’s face is malleable. Even unintentional suggestions – let alone the overt pressure alleged here – can contaminate memory and lead the witness to confidently identify the wrong person. In the absence of expert testimony explaining that there is no significant correlation between accuracy and confidence, jurors typically put great weight on eyewitness certainty. Davis’ trial attorneys did not call an expert; the jurors were instructed they could consider certainty when judging the reliability of these identifications.
Dorothy Ferrell was standing at least 160 feet away from the scene. It is impossible to observe sufficient facial detail at that distance. What explains her selection of Davis? The detectives showed Ferrell a single photo of Davis prior to the official identification and told her that he was the shooter. When later asked if she recognized the shooter from a group of five photos, she selected the photo previously shown to her.
What about the witnesses in the dimly-lit parking lot? What did the witnesses in the line of fire observe in the few seconds that transpired from Sylvester “Redd” Coles’ threat to shoot Larry Young to the shooting death of Officer MacPhail?
Stephen Sanders – one of eight passengers in a van ordering food at the drive-thru window after a night of drinking – was unable to identify the shooter that night. A month later, Sanders still could not identify the shooter. Neither could any of his companions. Yet, two years later, Sanders identified Troy Davis at trial. Memory does not improve over time.
Antione Williams saw an armed man arguing with Larry Young as the two faced off. Williams saw that same man pistol-whip Young and shoot Officer MacPhail. (Redd testified that he was the only one hassling Young. Redd conceded, as did the other witnesses, that Troy Davis never said a word to Young.) Over the next ten days, Williams viewed the wanted poster prominently displayed at his place of employment, with the same photo of Davis shown Ferrell and used in the photo array. After repeated exposure, Williams was 60% sure that Davis was the shooter.
Harriet Murray was in the parking lot waiting for Young to return. She saw one man (later identified as Redd) hassling Young for his beer as he walked back to the lot. She heard that man threaten Young, “You don’t know me. I’ll shoot you.” (Redd admitted that he – and only he – made this threat.) She saw that man pull a gun out of his waistband. At that point, she ran for cover.
Larry Young told the police, as he bled from his untreated head injury, that he was not sure who hit him because “everything happened so fast.”
Do we have any reason to feel confident that these eyewitnesses were accurately identifying Officer MacPhail’s killer? It is not even a close question. Justice and our commitment to protect the innocent require that Mr. Davis be given a new trial.
My friend you are mistaken when you describe the “undisputed” facts. The Georgia Supreme Court opinion does not describe “the facts” listed above as undisputed. What the Court said was:
“The evidence at trial authorized the jury to find the following:”
That means there was SOME evidence in the record which would allow the jurors to find those facts. It hardly means that the facts were undisputed. The identity of the person who pistol-whipped Young and then shot Officer MacPhail has always been in dispute. It has always been either Redd or Davis.
Here are the truly undisputed facts of this case – these were undisputed then and now.
Redd Coles, a known neighborhood thug who always carried a gun – usually a .38 caliber revolver, picked a fight with a homeless man (Young) over a beer. When Yound refused to give Redd his beer, Redd became angry. He threatened Young, “YOU DON’T KNOW ME. I’LL SHOOT YOU!” Within seconds, Young was pistol-whipped and Officer MacPhail was shot.
Yes, Troy Davis and DD Collins were standing nearby when Young was struck, but every single percipient witness agreed that neither Davis or Collins ever said a word to Young or had any interest in his beer.
Here are the undisputed facts that render the trial evidence utterly unreliable.
Decades of scientific studies confirm that distance, lighting, duration of crime, weapon-focus, other race effect, etc. can impede ability to encode sufficient detail to make an accurate identification later. Moreover, a witness’ memory of the assailant’s face is malleable. Even unintentional suggestions – let alone the overt pressure alleged here – can contaminate memory and lead the witness to confidently identify the wrong person. In the absence of expert testimony explaining that there is no significant correlation between accuracy and confidence, jurors typically put great weight on eyewitness certainty. Davis’ trial attorneys did not call an expert; the jurors were instructed they could consider certainty when judging the reliability of these identifications.
Dorothy Ferrell was standing at least 160 feet away from the scene. It is impossible to observe sufficient facial detail at that distance. What explains her selection of Davis? The detectives showed Ferrell a single photo of Davis prior to the official identification and told her that he was the shooter. When later asked if she recognized the shooter from a group of five photos, she selected the photo previously shown to her.
What about the witnesses in the dimly-lit parking lot? What did the witnesses in the line of fire observe in the few seconds that transpired from Sylvester “Redd” Coles’ threat to shoot Larry Young to the shooting death of Officer MacPhail?
Stephen Sanders – one of eight passengers in a van ordering food at the drive-thru window after a night of drinking – was unable to identify the shooter that night. A month later, Sanders still could not identify the shooter. Neither could any of his companions. Yet, two years later, Sanders identified Troy Davis at trial. Memory does not improve over time.
Antione Williams saw an armed man arguing with Larry Young as the two faced off. Williams saw that same man pistol-whip Young and shoot Officer MacPhail. (Redd testified that he was the only one hassling Young. Redd conceded, as did the other witnesses, that Troy Davis never said a word to Young.) Over the next ten days, Williams viewed the wanted poster prominently displayed at his place of employment, with the same photo of Davis shown Ferrell and used in the photo array. After repeated exposure, Williams was 60% sure that Davis was the shooter.
Harriet Murray was in the parking lot waiting for Young to return. She saw one man (later identified as Redd) hassling Young for his beer as he walked back to the lot. She heard that man threaten Young, “You don’t know me. I’ll shoot you.” (Redd admitted that he – and only he – made this threat.) She saw that man pull a gun out of his waistband. At that point, she ran for cover.
Larry Young told the police, as he bled from his untreated head injury, that he was not sure who hit him because “everything happened so fast.”
Do we have any reason to feel confident that these eyewitnesses were accurately identifying Officer MacPhail’s killer? It is not even a close question. Justice and our commitment to protect the innocent require that Mr. Davis be given a new trial.
(1) Summary, Davis v Ga, March 17, 2008
http://www.gasupreme.us/op_summaries/mar_17.pdf
” . . . the majority finds that ‘most of the witnesses to the crime who have allegedly recanted have merely stated that they now do not feel able to identify the shooter.’ “One of the affidavits ‘might actually be read so as to confirm trial testimony that Davis was the shooter.’ ”
The murder occurred in 1989.
(2) 9/22/08, “THE PAROLE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION OF THE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS CASE” http://www.pap.state.ga.us/opencms/opencms/
“After an exhaustive review of all available information regarding the Troy Davis case and after considering all possible reasons for granting clemency, the Board has determined that clemency is not warranted.”
“The Board has now spent more than a year studying and considering this case. As a part of its proceedings, the Board gave Davis’ attorneys an opportunity to present every witness they desired to support their allegation that there is doubt as to Davis’ guilt. The Board heard each of these witnesses and questioned them closely. In addition, the Board has studied the voluminous trial transcript, the police investigation report and the initial statements of all witnesses. The Board has also had certain physical evidence retested and Davis interviewed.”
(3) read the PDF statement released by Chatham County District Attorney Spencer Lawton on the case facts at: http://tinyurl.com/46c73l
A detailed review of the extraordinary consideration that Davis was given for all of his claims.
I don’t know what the answer is in this case – and that’s my problem with the death penalty. Capital punishment doesn’t give a grieving family any “closure” on a very painful episode — it prolongs the grief and agony. Every time the new execution date approaches, the family must deal with more news stories, interviews, appeals and other legal action — and reliving the loss.
As for the facts in the case, I will defer to one of my favorite novels, To Kill a Mockingbird. The jury decided what the facts were in Tom’s case and we all know that what the jury decided the facts were differed from what WE knew the facts were. Facts are very elusive creatures when dealing with emotionally charged issues and violence.
Once again I ask, are we sure of what happened that night?
I think that if they have no evidence and that the eye witness’s are recanting their statements then there should be no reason why this innocent man is still on death row. There is no murder weapon, and I think that the family of the police officer would want the person who really did murder him on death row and not out living his life like nothing happened. I have a strong opinion on this, because i feel in my gut that Troy Anthony Davis is innocent,and should be free to live th rest of his life, now that half of it has been taken from him.
Troy Anthony Davis and his family shouldn’t ahve to go through this anymore!
I think you are innocent Troy!
fairness before finality says it all to me. also, are we proud to be in company of countries like China and Iran that uphold the barbaric death penalty???