Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Capital Defense Weekly
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Capital Defense WeeklyIn re Troy Anthony Davis
By Karl R. Keys, Esq.
ADVERTISEMENTS
With keen initial reactions to the Court’s surprise 6-2 order for an evidentiary hearing on Troy Davis’s petition for an original writ of habeas corpus by Adam Liptak (here), Lyle Denniston, (here), and Orin Kerr (here), much of the essential reaction to the order has already been had. With that stated I thought I’d explore several of the intriguing issues with the Court’s brief order, and two opinions respecting that order (Justices Stevens & Scalia).
As backdrop to the Court’s action DPIC notes:
Since Davis’ initial conviction in 1991, seven of nine eyewitnesses against him have recanted their testimony. Justice John Paul Stevens, concurring with Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, wrote, “The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing...continue to full postFull post as published by Capital Defense Weekly on August 17, 2009 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.








