{"id":5109,"date":"2011-10-20T01:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-20T01:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/?p=5109"},"modified":"2025-05-09T14:23:44","modified_gmt":"2025-05-09T14:23:44","slug":"how-our-law-executed-troy-davis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/2011\/10\/20\/how-our-law-executed-troy-davis\/","title":{"rendered":"How Our Law Executed Troy Davis"},"content":{"rendered":"How could this happen? A few weeks ago, on September 21, Troy Davis was executed for murdering a police officer in Georgia, despite seven witness recantations and even an alleged confession from another man. So how is it that all<\/em> of Troy\u2019s appeals failed?\n\nBelow, I\u2019m going to explain what are widely considered to be the big<\/em> legal issues in the case. I must preface this by saying that in doing so, I am choosing to focus on certain<\/em> appeals filed by Troy Davis and his attorneys.\n\nIn a Georgia state court in 1991, Troy Davis was convicted<\/a> of murdering a police officer and sentenced to death.\n\nIn 1992, Troy began his state direct appeals<\/strong>. In accordance with Georgia capital punishment law, Troy\u2019s case was automatically appealed directly to the Georgia Supreme Court. Troy\u2019s trial attorneys were appointed to represent him on appeal, while a new attorney was appointed to review the record for effective assistance of counsel. The key here is recognizing that direct appeals don\u2019t allow the inmate to do much in terms of new evidence. Troy could not have re-interviewed witnesses; these appeals<\/a> are limited to allegations of procedural errors by the trial court. By 1993, his convictions were affirmed in the Georgia Supreme Court<\/a> and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.\n
a writ of habeas corpus<\/strong> is a petition filed by prisoners which essentially says \u201cprison warden, you are illegally holding me in custody, because I did not do what you say I did\u2014prove otherwise or set me free.\u201d Inmates can seek this remedy only after<\/em> their trials and direct appeals have failed.\n
So is this different then a prisoner just appealing his conviction? <\/em>\n
Yes\u2014once direct appeals have failed, this is the prisoner\u2019s next (and final) resort. Prisoners can do much more with habeas appeals than direct appeals\u2014they can re-interview witnesses, introduce new evidence, etc.<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\nIn 1994, Troy began his state habeas corpus appeals<\/strong>. It is important to note that there is no \u2018right to counsel\u2019 for death penalty convicts seeking habeas relief<\/a>, the theory being that a \u2018right to counsel\u2019 for direct appeals should be sufficient for constitutional purposes. Troy\u2019s first habeas petition failed largely because of ineffective counsel\u2014the nonprofit representing him lost much of its funding<\/a> and did not re-interview witnesses for the habeas petition, as it should have. The recantations and new evidence remained undiscovered. As a result: the petition was denied in 1997.\n
Antiterrorism & Death Penalty Act<\/strong> (AEDPA<\/strong>): The AEDPA was passed in 1996, in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing to \u201cto deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, [and] provide for an effective death penalty.\u201d The Act made filing multiple habeas petitions much<\/em> more difficult. The relevant part of the AEDPA<\/a> for Troy Davis\u2019s purposes is codified in 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2244:<\/span><\/span><\/span>\n
(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application<\/strong> . . . that was presented in a prior application<\/span><\/strong> shall be dismissed.\n\n(b)(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application . . . that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless:\n
\n