Reading Capital Defense Weekly this morning, I was struck by the story of Troy Davis.  I don’t profess to know enough about the case to have an opinion, but the opening line from the Amnesty International story was sufficient to peak my interest:

Restrictions on Federal appeals have prevented Troy Anthony Davis from having a hearing in federal court on the reliability of the witness testimony used against him, despite the fact that most of the witnesses have since recanted, many alleging they were pressured or coerced by police.

When did courts forget that the bottom line is innocence?  While Congress and Legislatures spend their days coming up with new roadblocks to deny access to courts, elevating the bureaucratic desire to expediency over the fundamental need for justice (you remember justice, the reason why we have this whole court-thingy to begin with?),  it seems that the grocery clerks running things have decided that it’s fine to put innocent people to death, or prison, as long as all the “t”s are crossed and “i”s are dotted. 

Prosecutors and the victim’s family have argued that Davis received a fair trial and has had plenty of appeals, all of which failed.

The naysayers will answer that if we let one defendant skirt the rules, then the courts will be flooded with convicted defendants desperately trying to find ways to challenge their convictions.  The courts will be overwhelmed, and unable to sentence new defendants to death do their jobs.  But isn’t adjudicating their job?  Isn’t it their job to hear these challenges, like recanted testimony resulting from police coercion?  Time limits are great, but they are not more important than people’s lives.  Or maybe that’s just me.

I am not so foolish, or knee-jerk, to accept the premise that every claim of impropriety is true.  Indeed, I’ve heard enough bull in my years as a lawyer to give me a very healthy dose of cynicism, and I have often told defendants who have come to me with some silly cock and bull story about how they were denied their “dooo process” that they ought to spend more time thinking about it before they do the crime rather than after.  No, I’m no pushover.

But the flip side is that there are people who have suffered an injustice, and the idea of an innocent person being put to death is impossible for any thinking person to accept.  It is simply unacceptable, just as it is unacceptable for some ill person to be simply left to die because they have no insurance.  Of course, in our society, they would be more likely to be run over by a new Mercedes SUV in a rush then helped to the hospital.

I applaud those lawyers who do not give up the fight to save a person they believe to be innocent, no matter what the obstacles or how unpopular the cause.  I just wanted to acknowledge your efforts here, and to remind those grocery clerks who keep their vigilant eye on the calender that putting an innocent person to death is more important than a habeas filed a day late.