On the Injustice of the Troy Davis Case
So the Supreme Court has declined to hear Troy Davis’ appeal.
In 1991, Davis was found guilty of the murder of an off-duty police officer in Savannah, Ga., based solely on eyewitness testimony. Since then, seven of the nine non-police officer witnesses have taken back their testimony against Davis. Many of the witnesses claim to have been pressured into providing damaging testimony against Davis by police officers eager for a conviction.
In 2009, the Supreme Court ordered a federal court to hear new evidence in Davis’ case, but the federal district court rejected his claims of innocence on August 24, 2010.
How is this possible?
Amnesty International USA explains:
With such witnesses as virtually the only evidence, the case against Troy Davis was always thin, but, ironically, that has meant that, once convicted, Davis has had little to drawn on to prove his innocence. (emphasis theirs)
It seems crazy to me that no physical evidence linking Davis to the crime coupled with 7 recanted testimonies isn’t enough to stop the state of Georgia from murdering this man. I don’t know what else you need to constitute “reasonable doubt” or decide that a trial was unfair.