Blood Lust

Why are we all so surprised at the Alabama prosecutors lack of understanding of justice. Don't you get it? He's from Alabama. Now do you get it? Think of Seigleman. Now do you get it? Never expect
Republicans to dispense justice, it just won't happen whether its the Justice Department in Washington or the prosecutors in Alabama. If its in the hands of Republicans then justice goes out the window.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1338 comments) on Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 7:34:23 PM
 

Justice

Rightly or wrongly I have now formed the view that justice and the US are incompatible.  Self serving politicians and an under-educated, paranoid and disengaged polity have rendered US justice a circus.

by kwalsh (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 227 comments) on Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 8:52:50 PM
 

Justice and Party

Arthur, 

If you think justice is just a matter of party lines, then you are sadly naive. You might like to know that the Alabama Supreme Court that ordered the stay is Republican dominated. Alabama's previous AG was a Republican and is now serving on the 11th Circuit. Troy King is an appointe who nobody likes, especially the district attorneys. It takes a lot more to provide justice than just checking the donkey straight ticket box.

by Carlos Jackson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 11:05:22 PM
 

Close Decision

While the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision struck me as eminently reasonable under the circumstances, I was surprised by how close it was – 5-4.  Voting in the majority were Chief Justice Cobb and Justices Lyons, Woodall, Smith and Murdock.  Justices See, Stuart, Bolin, and Parker voted against the stay. 

The comments of Attorney General Troy King, who styles himself as “General King” as though he were some sort of banana republic generalissimo, was beyond the pale, in my view.  The people deserve a zealous advocate in the courtroom, of course.  They also deserve a thoughtful and modest public servant, not a sanctimonious, self-serving Grand Poobah. 

Hopefully, the court decision will cause the ambitious “General King” to examine his own conscience and motives. But I doubt that will happen.

Thanks to all for your comments.

by Richard Wise (25 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 64 comments) on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 7:33:24 AM
 

Didn't the Supreme Court

os one of the other courts say that it wasn't enough that the person was innocent (in that someone else now confesses and there is proof of this) that as long as there was a fair trial there was no reason to NOT execute this innocent person? I could have read it in a novel but I thought that it was what the courts generally follow. A fair trial and innocent doesn't matter at all.   By the way, is this man black?  That is always a good determination as to why the South rushes to execute.

by shanti (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments) on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM
 

Good questions

Thanks very much for this comment.  I am not a lawyer and certainly not a capital punishment expert.  My objection to the death penalty arises from a sense of conscience and justice, not law or politics. 

Shanti, regarding your recollection about there being no reason NOT to execute as long as there was a fair trial, maybe that came out of a lower court, but not SCOTUS (as far as I can tell).  In fact, the Court in recent years has taken a number of important cases about how and when evidence is presented and considered. 

Two important ones relate to DNA evidence: 

In House v. Bell (2006), the Court ruled 5-3 that Tennessee death row inmate Paul House could challenge the constitutionality of his rape-murder conviction.  New evidence, including DNA evidence, raised enough doubt about his guilt to merit a new hearing.  He had been on death row for over 20 years. 

But in a court order (Lovitt v. True) the same year, the Court denied Certiorari to Robin Lovitt, who claimed that physical evidence, including DNA, had been destroyed by the state.  He also claimed he had been given ineffective counsel.  He won a stay of execution while his cert petition was being considered.  When cert was denied, Governor Mark Warner (VA) commuted his sentence to life without parole. 

In a separate but pertinent set of issues, the Court has tackled some important issues related to trial procedure and due process.  A fair trial is whatever the state Practice Book says it is, and that has raised some questions for the Court, especially from southern states. 

In Holmes v. South Carolina (2006), the Court ruled that SC denied Holmes a fair trial when it kept him from presenting evidence that contradicted the state’s case and that pointed to another possible suspect.  Eighteen other states filed a joint brief in support of South Carolina’s position, to no avail. 

In Smith v. Texas (2007) and two similar cases, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of inmates who said their juries had been prevented by Texas law from considering mitigating evidence presented by the defendants. 

Holmes and Smith tackle a procedural question that has been an issue in state courts in the South … if the state presents a compelling case, it’s not good enough to present your own evidence or alternative theory; you must directly dismantle and disprove the state’s case. 

I think these cases suggest that the Court is willing to consider new DNA evidence but that a mere claim of destroyed evidence that includes DNA will not get you very far; and that the state must allow a defendant to present evidence that could exonerate him or at least mitigate his punishment.  That is great progress, in my view.  

Where does all this leave Tommy Arthur?  In his case the state did not destroy the DNA evidence, it lost it.  And Mr. Arthur does have a plausible alternative theory about who killed Troy Wicker (there were a number of people who would have benefited from his demise).  In other words, I think he has a chance for at least a commutation and maybe even a release.

You asked if Thomas Arthur is black.  No, he is white.  So is Bobby Ray Gilbert, the man who came forth with the late confession. 

But race may play a role in this case.  Mr. Arthur was convicted of killing Troy Wicker and raping Mrs. Wicker during a 1982 burglary.  At the time of the crimes, Mrs. Wicker said the perpetrator was a young black man. 

Some time later, it was learned that Mrs. Wicker had paid someone $10,000 to kill her husband for the insurance money.  She was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison.  After 10 years in prison, she bargained for her release, saying she had paid the execution money to Thomas Arthur. 

Trouble is, at the time of the burglary, rape and murder, Thomas Gilbert was not a young black man, he was a 40-year-old white man.   

Because Mrs. Wicker was raped, wouldn’t there be DNA evidence that would point to the truth?  There was, but the state lost the rape kit.  So DNA is simply not available to corroborate anybody’s story – young-old, black-white, Arthur-Gilbert-whoever. 

None of this appears to trouble the Attorney General, who continues to advocate for Mr. Arthur’s prompt (if there can be such a thing after 26 years) execution.  Five Alabama Supreme Court justices were sufficiently troubled by these inconsistencies to at least stay the execution.  We will have to stay tuned to see what happens from this point. 

by Richard Wise (25 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 64 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 11:45:27 AM