I haven't written about it much on this blog, but I possess a J.D. and practiced law. Prior to passing the Maryland Bar I was a clerk for the Office of the Public Defender and served one year as a judge's clerk. I saw a lot of cases tried in those years (1997 to 2000), some were amusing (a retired Air Force officer decided to be his own divorce lawyer and the mixture of arrogance and incompetence was comedy gold) or horrifying (the baby boiler, still makes me shudder).
You see enough cases tried, big or small, and you realize quickly how imperfect the human memory is. Cops lie. Doctors and lawyers lie. People who should recall important details don't. Confessions are coerced through beatings or promises. That's the nature of a system still owned and operated by human beings.
Prosecuting attorneys are political creatures, and not likely to step forward and admit publicly that they've railroaded an innocent person. They're trained to think themselves infallible by way of "following the evidence." When there's no direct evidence, they will pin their hopes to witness statements or circumstantial evidence - a weaker form of evidence but something that can work in pinch. It's common knowledge in your local courthouse that witness statements are the least reliable of the lot.
By contrast, defense lawyers ratchet up the paranoia. Everyone's a liar: the prosecutor, the cops, the lab techs, the opposing witnesses. The defense lawyer is ethically bound (as is the prosecutor) from lying personally - but in truth both sides get as close as they can to the ethical line. Evidence is withheld. Witnesses are discouraged from testifying. The lawyers play games with court filings.....in doing so most cases take a long time to wind their way through the system.
It's a good system, when compared to forcing defendants to overcome a presumption of guilt. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the maxim, but the State tends to operate with the presumption that "we've got the right guy." Their certainty can often-times be well placed, in cases where there is DNA evidence and confessions and direct evidence (like fingerprints and clothing). The defendant enjoys well-known constitutional protections (though those are being eroded regularly by a Supreme Court that favors the government in such cases) but he's usually one little guy against the power of the State (unless his name is OJ Simpson). The defendant is also up against what I'll call "the Cult of the Cop" - an odd presumption that doesn't exist in the legal world but seems to manifest itself in the public eye through unquestioned belief that a cop will not lie under oath, that "our boys in blue" are all about Mom, the Flag, and apple pie.
Which brings us to death cases, and last night's evil.
Death cases are awful to try. They take years, and the procedural safeguards are daunting. Prosecutors like them because they can build a career on the idea that putting the mass-murdering Defendant X to death will show that they protect the people by being "tough on crime." Likewise, defense attorneys can build a name by keeping Defendant X alive - if Defendant X can afford it (or, at least, the defense lawyer can look like a champion of the US Constitution in their efforts). At the end of the day, the only real ass on the line is that of the Defendant. The lawyers, judges, and staff go home. The Defendant? Not likely.
"Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." That is the standard of proof sufficient to kill a person. There must be no taint of coercion or manipulation of the evidence.
This is all theory, in practice it's harder to tell.
This morning they murdered a man who was alleged to have murdered a police officer. Several of the eyewitnesses RECANTED their testimony and claimed that they'd lied on the stand (meaning that perhaps there are new perjury defendants for the prosecutors to charge). The irregularities were EVERYWHERE. A simple solution would have been to commute the sentence to life in prison and at least allow Troy Davis to live - what was the rush? There was no DNA evidence, no direct evidence, and as I've said a slew of "witnesses" recanted prior statements. A new trial would not have been too difficult.
But for a prosecutor it would be a form of career death. They traffic in being right, not in making mistakes. There's no allowance for human error, as they're not permitted to make them. They obviously do, of course, but they have to believe that they can't. Otherwise, who'd go to jail? Judges don't like resurrecting cases, there's enough new ones every day to keep them busy. The Pope writes letters that go unheeded. Former Presidents and celebrities try as well, to no avail. Go to a prison near your home and you'll notice that a majority of the guys and gals locked up are minorities - African-American and Hispanic. The proportionate numbers are staggering. This cannot be used to excuse criminal activity, but you've gotta ask yourself if the people who run the "system" don't prejudice themselves when they see another black man led in chains to their courtroom, thinking "another angry looking black guy, he's gotta be guilty."
Whoever killed the officer who was the victim in Troy Davis' case deserves whatever judgment God gives him. Maybe that was Troy Davis, but I doubt we'll ever know for sure. In cases where the State can kill a man, though, any doubt should dissuade them from flipping the switch and erasing him from existence - and there is certainly A TONNAGE of doubt regarding his case.
Instead, everyone who had power played Pontius Pilate and washed their hands. Y'all can't see the blood on your hands, you blind fools, but it's there nonetheless. If Troy Davis was indeed innocent, as he claimed, God help you.