Since Troy Davis’ 1991 conviction, numerous facts have emerged that introduce significant doubt as to his guilt. These facts include:
All but two of the original witnesses against Troy Davis have signed affidavits recanting their earlier testimony. Most claim that their testimony was coerced by police officers.1
Multiple witnesses say that another man — one of the original witnesses against Davis — has claimed to have slain the fallen officer.2
The weapon used in the murder was never found. The only physical evidence connecting Davis to the crime was circumstantial — and new testimony disputes Davis’s connection to that evidence.3
In light of this evidence, the Supreme Court granted Davis another chance. But instead of an actual new trial before a jury, which would mean the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is on the prosecutor, he got an evidentiary hearing before a single federal judge where Davis’ lawyers had the burden to meet an impossibly high and undefined legal standard.
Unbelievably, the judge rejected the new evidence and cleared the way for Davis’ execution. But even he acknowledged lingering doubt, noting that the case against Davis was not “ironclad.”
But “ironclad” is exactly what the evidence should be in order to put someone to death. If the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole doesn’t act to stop Davis’ execution, they’ll run a serious risk of putting an innocent man to death. That is not acceptable.
"One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty. A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed." Rev Canon Karanja.