Execution in Missouri

For an assessment of the evidence against him, here's something to consider.

http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/williams-marcellus.htm

Note that the Al Jazeera article never mentions a couple of things, such as the fact that items from the murdered woman's house were found in Williams possession, or that the jailhouse informant and William's girlfriend provided specific details of the killing that they could not possibly have known where they simply making the story up.

Without information, I have no idea why the court turned down the DNA evidence as grounds for a new trial, but I don't think Williams is a poor innocent who is being railroaded by the system.

One of the issues involved here may be simply the grounds for appeal. Most criminal appeals have to be based on a contention about something being done wrong at the original trial. Injecting "new evidence" into the appeal process may not be a recognized reason for appeal. I don't know how Missouri law views such things, but this could be an instance of the Appeals Court ruling on that technicality.

caw

I wonder how far the right-wing justices would take this. Let's say someone was convicted of murder in a case where the body was never found. Before the execution, the supposed victim shows up alive and well. Would the execution still take place if there were no technical issues with the trial?

I know there is a reason for not wanting to encourage a complete rehash of criminal cases every time someone claims to find a new piece of evidence. The system would collapse under the burden, and it would encourage defendants to save evidence as "start-over" cards. But in the case of executions, it makes no sense to say "as long as your trial was fair, we'll still kill you knowing you were innocent."

Legally, an execution could still occur if it were conclusive that the convict was innocent. Politically? I think it would be such a reductio ad absurdum that the death penalty would be abolished.

rugcat said:

For an assessment of the evidence against him, here's something to consider.

http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/williams-marcellus.htm

Note that the Al Jazeera article never mentions a couple of things, such as the fact that items from the murdered woman's house were found in Williams possession, or that the jailhouse informant and William's girlfriend provided specific details of the killing that they could not possibly have known where they simply making the story up.

Without information, I have no idea why the court turned down the DNA evidence as grounds for a new trial, but I don't think Williams is a poor innocent who is being railroaded by the system.

Click to expand...

blacbird said:

One of the issues involved here may be simply the grounds for appeal. Most criminal appeals have to be based on a contention about something being done wrong at the original trial. Injecting "new evidence" into the appeal process may not be a recognized reason for appeal. I don't know how Missouri law views such things, but this could be an instance of the Appeals Court ruling on that technicality.

caw

Click to expand...

There are a host of issues, detailed in the motion filed by The Innocence Project.

Twick said:

I wonder how far the right-wing justices would take this. Let's say someone was convicted of murder in a case where the body was never found. Before the execution, the supposed victim shows up alive and well. Would the execution still take place if there were no technical issues with the trial?

I know there is a reason for not wanting to encourage a complete rehash of criminal cases every time someone claims to find a new piece of evidence. The system would collapse under the burden, and it would encourage defendants to save evidence as "start-over" cards. But in the case of executions, it makes no sense to say "as long as your trial was fair, we'll still kill you knowing you were innocent."

Click to expand...

Ask Rick Perry , who knowingly executed an innocent man and stopped the experts from reporting on just how innocent he was, before the execution.

James D. Macdonald said:

A Slate article on whether actual innocence is grounds for appeal.

Click to expand...

The idea that actual innocence is irrelevant in an appeals process is classic Scalia:

Concurring in judgment, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have gone even farther. Taking issue with the majority’s mere hypothetical entertainment of an innocence claim, Scalia wrote: “There is no basis, tradition, or even in contemporary practice for finding that in the Constitution the right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after a conviction.”

Click to expand...

For Scalia, narrow parsing of language and the logical progression that followed from that parsing always mattered for more than the real world results of his rulings, no matter how unjust those results. Which is why I despised him as a justice.

There is no doubt but that the Williams case should be revisited. However, I personally believe he is guilty of the murder.

rugcat said:

The idea that actual innocence is irrelevant in an appeals process is classic Scalia:For Scalia, narrow parsing of language and the logical progression that followed from that parsing always mattered for more than the real world results of his rulings, no matter how unjust those results. Which is why I despised him as a justice.

There is no doubt but that the Williams case should be revisited. However, I personally believe he is guilty of the murder.

Click to expand...

Why, just out of curiosity.

Twick said:

I wonder how far the right-wing justices would take this. Let's say someone was convicted of murder in a case where the body was never found. Before the execution, the supposed victim shows up alive and well. Would the execution still take place if there were no technical issues with the trial?

I know there is a reason for not wanting to encourage a complete rehash of criminal cases every time someone claims to find a new piece of evidence. The system would collapse under the burden, and it would encourage defendants to save evidence as "start-over" cards. But in the case of executions, it makes no sense to say "as long as your trial was fair, we'll still kill you knowing you were innocent."

Click to expand...

I see James and Rugcat posted the same citation. I'll leave this here anyway, it's worth emphasis. It's no surprise how many of us remember Scalia's position on this.

Scalia said if a person had had a fair trial, Scalia did not care if an innocent person were executed.

Concurring in judgment, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have gone even farther. Taking issue with the majority’s mere hypothetical entertainment of an innocence claim, Scalia wrote: “There is no basis, tradition, or even in contemporary practice for finding that in the Constitution the right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after a conviction.” He concluded, “With any luck, we shall avoid ever having to face this embarrassing question again.”

Click to expand...

Pretty disgusting.

A stay has been issued.

First, there are too many known mistakes, so I am against the death penalty on that basis alone.

But certainly any case there is any doubt deserves review.

cornflake said:

Why, just out of curiosity.

Click to expand...

Because neither the lack of William's DNA on the knife (16 years later) nor the presence of DNA from an "unknown male" does not prove his innocence. There can be alternate explanations for both those findings. It's not like a rape case where the DNA absolutely can exonerate a suspect. Absent other evidence, that would surely be a significant piece of evidence leading away from Williams, but it's not at all conclusive.

To me, the most damning evidence is that Williams was in possession of items from the victim's house – he sold the laptop and other items were found in the trunk of his car. How exactly did he come into possession of these items? I've heard no explanation from him or anyone else.

Certainly jail house informants have lied, especially when there's money to be had. But, according to prosecutors, the information that both the informant and Williams girlfriend gave while stating that Williams admitted to the murder contained details that were not public and could only have been known by someone who was at the scene first hand.

It seems unlikely, to say the least, that two separate people, who did not know each other, could come up with identical (and accurate) descriptions of what the murderer did unless Williams had told them.

And the girlfriend did not come forward with her accusations until the police approached her due to the information they had received. She states, believably to me, that she had been afraid of what Williams would do to her and her children if she talked.

Couple that testimony with the fact that Williams had items from the murder scene in his possession, and I'm not sure how one gets around that

Also, I take into account that Williams was a career criminal with a long history including convictions for violent felonies. In a court of law that is rightly not considered admissible evidence, but in the court of public opinion, namely mine, it does carry some weight.

I just saw a news alert that the execution will not take place tonight as planned.

Yes, the execution has been halted.

I think (or hope) that perhaps from Scalia's viewpoint, innocence after conviction should be seen as an executive function rather than a judicial one. In other words, if a significant miscarriage of justice appears likely, the governor (or other official in charge) should have the responsibility of stopping things, according to the will of the people of the community. This is still an iffy proposition, but I understand the fear that all convictions could be put in limbo if the possibility of additional evidence could overturn them without judicial error.

I have to agree with rugcat, the evidence of guilt appears very solid.

The typically falsely convicted are based on confessions and eye witnesses, both of which have been shown to be unreliable much of the time.

I don't understand the motive in this case, he broke in, could have left but waited for the woman to get out of the shower then he stabs her rather brutally. Hard to be empathetic.

Like I said, I'm against the death penalty for many reasons, the biggest one being innocent people have been on death row, and it's very likely innocent people have been executed. It's not worth it when an innocent person might be executed.

The death penalty also makes no sense to me. Most countries in the civilized world do not use it.

But in this case, the knee-jerk 'there's DNA' needs to be looked at in context.