The Retort

An Unusual Order

September 25th, 2009 by Bailey Martin Of The Retort Staff

During its summer recess, the United States Supreme Court gathered on August 17, to review Troy Anthony Davis’s habeas petition. The court ruled six to two in favor of his petition and issued an unusual order allowing Davis another day in court to prove he is innocent.

This order is unusual because the Supreme Court has not made any similar orders in nearly 50 years. Under this order, a federal judge in the Southern District of Georgia will hear testimony that has been gathered since Davis’s trial in 1991. Then the judge will determine if the evidence proves that Davis is innocent. According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Chief U.S. District Judge William T. Moore Jr. will preside over Davis’s new evidentiary hearing.

Davis was convicted and sentenced to death in 1991 for murdering Mark MacPhail, an off-duty police officer, in a Savannah Burger King parking lot. In 1989, Davis and a man named Sylvester “Red” Coles were harassing a homeless man in the Burger King parking lot. According to Time, when Davis or Coles pistol-whipped the homeless man, MacPhail came to the homeless man’s aid and he was shot multiple times. MacPhail had been working as a security officer for that Burger King that night.

Immediately, Coles and Davis accused each other of shooting MacPhail. According to Amnesty International, after an investigation, Davis was convicted without physical evidence or a murder weapon tying him to MacPhail’s death.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, seven of nine key witnesses have retracted their testimony since his conviction. Some of these witnesses had originally stated that they saw Davis kill MacPhail. Coles has been implicated as the actual killer in nine sworn statements.

Now, only Coles and another person are the two remaining key witnesses who have not recanted their testimony. People have also come forward and stated that Coles told them that he shot MacPhail.

In 1996, five years after Davis’s trial, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was passed by Congress. Under the AEDPA, death-row prisoners are now only allowed one set of appeals in federal court.

In 2007, Davis was granted a 90-day stay of execution by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles after a six-hour long hearing. According to Time, United States Representative John Lewis spoke at Davis’s hearing. According to prepared remarks, Lewis said in testimony:

“I do not know Troy Anthony Davis. I do not know if he is guilty of the charges of which he has been convicted. But I do know that nobody should be put to death based on the evidence we now have in this case.”

Davis was given the stay of execution, one day before he was scheduled to be executed.

Last year on September 12, Davis used his one set of appeals in federal court when the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles examined the new evidence.

The board denied Davis’s commutation order. So Davis went to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and asked a panel of judges for special permissions under the AEDPA to file another appeal. His second appeal was based only on the claim that Davis is innocent and the panel ruled against Davis.

Many times since the AEDPA was passed, the Supreme Court has held the limits required by the AEDPA are valid only when they restrict the lower courts. Meaning that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter and is still able to issue a writ of habeas corpus if they choose.

Since Davis had already had one federal appeal and he was denied special permission for a second appeal by the 11th Circuit, Davis asked the Supreme Court for another federal appeal. The Supreme Court granted him an evidentiary hearing and Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

“The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing. Simply put, the case is sufficiently ‘exceptional’ to warrant utilization of this Court’s rule 20.4 (a).”

Supreme Court rule 20.4 (a) states:

“To justify the granting of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must show that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court. This writ is rarely granted.” (Rules of the Court)

Now Davis’s fate rests in Judge Moore’s hands. At the evidentiary hearing, Judge Moore will determine whether or not Davis is innocent after he examines the conflicting evidence and testimony.