BAD decision by Supreme Court... leads to execution of innocent man (Bush OK w/ that?)

[struth]

what is relevant is that there was NEW information

wasn't looked at

scotus said Innocence is not a reason to re-look at the casse..

If it had been the Justices' innocence involved, it would have been decided differently

Love your neighbor as yourself

SCOTUS said actual innocence claim is not a habeuous claim. The court directed him to the proper procedure to make that claim

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

what is relevant is that there was NEW information

wasn't looked at

scotus said Innocence is not a reason to re-look at the casse..

If it had been the Justices' innocence involved, it would have been decided differently

Love your neighbor as yourself

scotus said Innocence is not a reason to re-look at the casse..

They said a claim of innocence doesn't mean the killer gets to use habeas corpus to escape the death penalty.

 

[9thIDdoc]

what is relevant is that there was NEW information

wasn't looked at

scotus said Innocence is not a reason to re-look at the casse..

If it had been the Justices' innocence involved, it would have been decided differently

Love your neighbor as yourself

Wrong. New information is only relevant if it is sufficient to warrant a new trial and then only if the new trial results in a not guilty verdict. Once given due process and found guilty by Judge and jury the convict remains guilty until and unless found innocent by the same due process. Frankly the only problem I see is the money innocent taxpayers were required to spend to find, apprehend, try, house and feed this scumbag for over a decade. A shame that following conviction and sentencing he wasn't simply taken out in back of the courthouse, shot a time or two in the head and his body sent to it's new home in the local land fill. Think of all the money that could be better spent on actually innocent members of society rather than it's enemies.

 

[bambu.]

Guilty!
Sabrina Butler, Black Teen mom, sentenced to death for the murder of her baby.
Off to death row to be killed in cold blood by the state she was taken.
As luck would have it, her case was taken up by lawyers.
She was eventually found not guilty and freed from death row.
Sabrina Butler is her name.
Wanna know all about the justice system...and it chambers of death, she's just the gal to tell you.
She campaigns, ...writes books (I think).
Imagine being on death row awaiting your premeditated killing by the state...knowing you're innocent.

 

[FA_Q2]

what is relevant is that there was NEW information

wasn't looked at

scotus said Innocence is not a reason to re-look at the casse..

If it had been the Justices' innocence involved, it would have been decided differently

Love your neighbor as yourself

No, they said claiming you were innocent does not, in and of itself, guarantee a retrial.

That 2 people had some hearsay evidence 10 years later does not really meet any threshold of new evidence.

This is a very poor case to lament on how bad SCOTUS has been.

The painfully obvious one to go for is Dred Scott v. Sandford. If you want a truly bad decision, not much tops that.
Plessy v. Ferguson is another easy go to. CLEARLY decided not on law but on racism and bigotry.

Government abuse is easy to cite too. Wickard v. Filburn is a prime case of asinine thinking.

 

[bambu.]

Wrong. New information is only relevant if it is sufficient to warrant a new trial and then only if the new trial results in a not guilty verdict. Once given due process and found guilty by Judge and jury the convict remains guilty until and unless found innocent by the same due process. Frankly the only problem I see is the money innocent taxpayers were required to spend to find, apprehend, try, house and feed this scumbag for over a decade. A shame that following conviction and sentencing he wasn't simply taken out in back of the courthouse, shot a time or two in the head and his body sent to it's new home in the local land fill. Think of all the money that could be better spent on actually innocent members of society rather than it's enemies.

But, what if, the old and original trial was a croc?
They tried 3 times to get Ray Krone "The snaggletooth killer" into their chamber of death torturing.
He had a snaggle tooth but he didn't kill anyone.
He was the last person to be seen with the lady victim at the bar.
Cops got it into their heads that he was guilty. The cops were wrong.
Cops would do well to assume that everyone is innocent, and do proper investigations to find the guilty.

 

[9thIDdoc]

But, what if, the old and original trial was a croc?
They tried 3 times to get Ray Krone "The snaggletooth killer" into their chamber of death torturing.
He had a snaggle tooth but he didn't kill anyone.
He was the last person to be seen with the lady victim at the bar.
Cops got it into their heads that he was guilty. The cops were wrong.
Cops would do well to assume that everyone is innocent, and do proper investigations to find the guilty.

But, what if, the old and original trial was a croc?
It is society's job to assure that it isn't a croc.
It is also society's job to see that the guilty are brought to justice. That is society's debt to the victims and their friends and family.

 

[FA_Q2]

But, what if, the old and original trial was a croc?
They tried 3 times to get Ray Krone "The snaggletooth killer" into their chamber of death torturing.
He had a snaggle tooth but he didn't kill anyone.
He was the last person to be seen with the lady victim at the bar.
Cops got it into their heads that he was guilty. The cops were wrong.
Cops would do well to assume that everyone is innocent, and do proper investigations to find the guilty.

And if that were the issue before the court then you might have a point.

It was not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Herrera v. Collins - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have been studying SCOTUS cases... It is unbelievable how often scotus has violated the US Constitution and natural law and just common freaking sense

This case here is one of the mosst godawful of all... very sad story..

I agree, the guy who killed two cops was awful.

Glad they executed him.

 

[Mushroom]

Who were the witnesses? Link?

We can start with Enrique Hernandez. He was with one of the three officers that Leonel Torres Herrera murdered. In addition, the second officer shot gave a statement before he died that he was shot by Leonel Torres Herrera.

All of the claims of innocence came about after Herrera's brother was murdered, and then people started jumping out of the woodwork trying to claim he was the real murderer.

Leonel Torres Herrera (September 7, 1947 – May 12, 1993) was sentenced to death for murdering two Texas police officers, David Rucker and Enrique Carrisalez. The murders occurred on September 29, 1981 at separate locations along a highway between Brownsville and Los Fresnos.
Enrique Hernandez, Carrisalez’ patrol car partner, identified Herrera. Hernandez also said Herrera was only person in the car that they stopped. Carrisalez, who did not die until 9 days after he was shot, identified Herrera from a single photo. A license plate check showed that the stopped car belonged to Herrera’s live in girlfriend.
In 1984, after Herrera’s brother Raul was murdered, Raul’s attorney came forward and signed an affidavit stating that Raul told him he had killed Rucker and Carrisalez. A former cellmate of Raul also came forward and signed a similar affidavit. Raul’s son, Raul Jr., who was nine at the time of the killings, signed a third affidavit. It averred that he had witnessed the killings. Jose Ybarra, Jr., a schoolmate of the Herrera brothers, signed a fourth affidavit.
Ybarra alleged that Raul Sr. told him in 1983 that he had shot the two police officers. Herrera alleged that law enforcement officials were aware of Ybarra’s statement and had withheld it in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Armed with these affidavits, Herrera petitioned for a new trial, but was denied relief in state courts. One court did dismiss Herrera’s Brady claim due to lack of evidence. Herrera’s appeal eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was argued in October 1992.
In January 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Herrera's claim of actual innocence was not a bar to his execution. He had to show that there were procedural errors in his trial in order to gain relief. Justice Rehnquist wrote that the "presumption of innocence disappears" once a defendant has been convicted in a fair trial. Dissenting Justice Blackmun wrote: "The execution of a person who can show that he is innocent comes perilously close to simple murder." Herrera was executed by lethal injection on May 12, 1993, four months after the ruling.
Herrera declined a last meal. His final statement was:
I am innocent, innocent, innocent. Make no mistake about this; I owe society nothing. Continue the struggle for human rights, helping those who are innocent, especially Mr. Graham. I am an innocent man, and something very wrong is taking place tonight. May God bless you all. I am ready.​

Leonel Torres Herrera | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers

Murderpedia, the free online encyclopedic dictionary of murderers. The largest database about serial killers, mass murderers and spree killers around the world

murderpedia.org