Sometimes the Law Isn't "an Ass"

Charles Dickens' Mr. Bumble had harsh words for the law in the context of marital rights: "If the law supposes that... the law is a [sic] ass-a idiot." Every once in a while, however, in spite of itself, the law produces justice. When this happens the public should rejoice and some jurists wonder what went wrong.

Take the case of Troy Davis, a death row Georgia inmate. Mr. Davis was convicted in 1991 for the 1989 murder of a Savannah police officer. During the years following his conviction, the case against Mr. Davis came apart. Although there was no murder weapon found, no fingerprint evidence, no DNA, in short, no physical proof of guilt with the defendant insisting on his innocence, a jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to die. The conviction was based exclusively on testimony of nine witnesses who implicated Mr. Davis in the crime. During the past years, seven of the nine witnesses recanted their testimony, claiming pressure and intimidation by the police to coerce the testimony. Other exculpatory evidence has been brought forth; there is, moreover, some showing that one of the witnesses has been shown to be a more likely suspect in the officer's killing.

It seems reasonable to assume that the law would allow Mr. Davis an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there were rounds for a new trial. No one has asked for him to be released - just a chance to get a hearing to see if he should get a new trial. Not on some arcane technicality but on the ground that he was possibly innocent.

An appeal was taken to the Georgia Supreme Court, Mr. Davis being represented by an acknowledged over-burdened and under-staffed Georgia Resource Center, centering on allegations of discriminatory jury selection issues. Nothing about recanting witnesses, exculpatory evidence or possible police misconduct was brought to the state Supreme Court. Why? The statement of the person in charge of the appeal submitted an affidavit stating, in part:

"The work conducted on Mr. Davis' case was akin to triage, where we were simply trying to avert total disaster rather than provide any kind of active or effective representation... There were numerous witnesses that we knew should have been interviewed, but lacked the resources to do so."

Whatever the reason, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that there were no procedural flaws in the original trial and that "it was fair". Later appeals were processed through the Georgia courts and were denied, all without consideration of the witness and misconduct allegations.

Mr. Davis' attorneys, now augmented by the Innocence Project organization, began a series of habeas corpus procedures through the Federal Courts, presenting all of the evidence that had either been unavailable during the original trial or had been newly discovered. By now, the United States Congress had passed and President Clinton had signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act