Troy Davis and constitutional virtues

[nadinbrzezinski]

(CNN) -- When I was a federal prosecutor, I had some sleepless nights. On a few occasions, it was after I had lost at trial; I would lie in bed and think of what I did wrong.

Other times, though, my sleepless hours came after I had won a trial or gotten what I wanted at sentencing. The haunting question was always the same: What if I was wrong?

Some might consider that admission a sign of weakness or a lack of resolve, but in retrospect, I see those nights as ones in which I was fully human. The cost of being wrong as a prosecutor is almost unthinkable. This is especially true in a capital case, such as the recent and tumultuous end game in the Troy Davis case in Georgia. Davis' final appeals to the state of Georgia were denied, despite the fact that seven of the nine witnesses against him had recanted their stories. His last hope, the U.S. Supreme Court, denied his application for a stay of execution on Wednesday night, sealing his fate. He was executed shortly after 11 p.m.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/opinion/troy-davis-legal-issues/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Worth reading the whole piece

[Eric J in MN]

1. 1996

From the article:

"1996's Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act...strictly limited the ability of someone like Troy Davis to receive relief by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus."

[court jester]

2. Well done-wiki on the AEDPA

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, (also known as AEDPA) is an act of Congress signed into law on April 24, 1996. The bill was introduced by former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress (91-8-1 in the United States Senate, 293-133-7 in the House of Representatives) following the Oklahoma City bombing, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.<1><2>

...The AEDPA had a tremendous impact on the law of habeas corpus in the United States. One provision of the AEDPA limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court's adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision...(more)...

...Soon after it was enacted, AEDPA endured a critical test in the Supreme Court. The basis of the challenge was that the provisions limiting the ability of persons to file successive habeas petitions violated Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, the Suspension Clause. The Supreme Court held unanimously in Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1997), that these limitations did not unconstitutionally suspend the writ.

...In 2005, the United States Ninth Circuit indicated that it was willing to consider a challenge to the constitutionality of AEDPA on separation of powers grounds under City of Boerne v. Flores and Marbury v. Madison,<3> but has since decided that the issue had been settled by circuit precedent.<4>..."

Settled law!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Terrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act

Now I ask the question: How would Kagen and Sotomeyer have voted on this??

[Eric J in MN]

3. Kagan and Sotomayor

I don't know how they would have ruled in that case.

However, they seem to be doing a good job.

Are you critical of anything they've done since being seated on the Supreme Court?

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. 9th circuit is a step bellow the USSC.

So until it goes there, we will not know.