Last week, an 8-1 vote of the Mississippi Supreme Court halted the scheduled execution of Willie Manning a mere four hours before he was schedule to be put to death by lethal injection. While 8 justices of the Court eventually did the right thing, the very fact that we came as close as we did to executing the man is a testament to the utter disaster the state of the justice system is in.
Remarkably, if we look at this case, long marred by racial bias in jury selection, there is actually no reliable evidence to sustain Mr. Manning’s 1994 conviction.
As the Atlantic notes, the staying order, brief as it is, does not specify why the court blocked the execution, but the magazine, which has extensively covered the case notes, “the Mississippi court’s order Tuesday is likely based upon the scientific evidence that was and was not introduced at trial. Manning’s attorneys have long argued that state officials should test DNA and fingerprint evidence from the crime scene — evidence that has never been tested and that would either incriminate Manning definitively or perhaps identify someone else who may have committed the crimes.”
Given the number of cases exonerated by DNA evidence, it is stunning that we would have this debate still let alone a court fight, but the state consistently refused to do this testing, fought against it in the court, even though the FBI has offered to do it (which means that the state would not even have to pay for it).
Writes the Atlantic, “As a matter of law, the absence of this testing from a shaky case like this was likely enough to warrant a stay of Manning’s execution.”
One of the most basic reforms would seem to be to mandate DNA testing in all capital cases where it might prove exculpatory. It would the court fight at least over whether to do the testing, it might not resolve the issue of innocence, but that is for the attorneys to hammer out and the courts to adjudicate.
A further examination of this case, however, reveals, there is actually no evidence to tie Mr. Manning to the case.
A key part of the prosecutor’s original case was forensic evidence that would tie Mr. Manning to the murder. However, on May 2, 2013, “, the Justice Department has sent three letters to the attorneys in the case announcing that the feds now are backing away from the “ballistics” and “hair fiber” testimony their so-called “expert” testified about at Manning’s trial. State prosecutors heavily relied on that now-discredited evidence at trial — as have state court judges ever since — as proof that Manning’s conviction was secure enough to warrant his execution.”
Without that analysis, there is no physical evidence linking Mr. Manning to the 1992 murders of two Mississippi State University Students.
Another key piece of evidence has fallen by the wayside. In a previous article, the Atlantic reported, “The “jailhouse informant” who once told trial jurors that Manning “confessed” to the crime, has since recanted, telling defense lawyers he thought he would receive “consideration” from prosecutors for incriminating Manning.”
The trial itself is problematic as well.
During jury selection in a case where a black man was accused of murdering two white people in the Deep south, “was marked by the sort of racial attitudes over peremptory challenges that has since caused the United States Supreme Court, in Miller-El v. Dretke and Snyder v. Louisiana, to caution state lawyers about coming into appellate courts with “unreasonable” justifications for excluding black jurors from cases involving black defendants. Over and over again, Manning’s prosecutors excluded black jurors from his trial, sometimes for no other reason than that they read “black” magazines.”
“Racial bias. A faulty confession. Untested scientific evidence. In these circumstances, one could reasonably argue that the “accuracy” of Manning’s conviction and death sentence are in doubt,” the Atlantic writes. “Even more rationally, one could argue that the state has at its disposal the relatively simple means to answer some of the most basic questions raised by the case — test the evidence! But late last month, in a divided ruling, the Supreme Court of Mississippi declared that the time had come to end the debate over Manning’s case and his cause. By a 5-4 vote, the justices rejected the defendant’s attempt to test the evidence and for other relief.”
We do not know why the court suddenly and without elaboration changed course.
What we do know how is why the 9th member of the court dissented.
Justice Michael K. Randolph as the Atlantic reports, “helped illustrate the dubious rationale behind so many of these flawed capital cases.”
To Justice Randolph, “the grave error in this case was not the false testimony against Manning or the lack of DNA testing, it was the fact that his lawyers this week failed to submit affidavits with the letters from federal officials.”
But it gets worse from there.
Justice Randolph takes exception to the intervention by the Justice Department into this case.
He writes, “The letter also states that the Department of Justice is “assist[ing] [the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers] in their evaluations.””
He continues, “”The Innocence Project supports a moratorium on capital punishment.” The “NACDL has been an outspoken critic of the death penalty system. Of critical concern is the language contained in the first FBI report stating that, “[g]iven the abbreviated time frame for review, the FBI requests the Innocence Project (IP) to advise as to whether or not they agree with the FBI’s conclusions as soon as possible.””
Finally he links this capitol case to “Fast and Furious” the Boston Bombing Miranda, and Benghazi. He writes, “Although the connectivity and expediency by which this review was accomplished is mind boggling, I should not be surprised, given that the families of the victims of the clandestine “Fast and Furious” gun running operation can’t get the Department of Justice to identify the decision makers (whose actions resulted in the death of a border agent and many others) after years of inquiry, and that this is the same Department of Justice that grants and enforces Miranda warnings to foreign enemy combatants.”” (emphasis in original).
For years I have listened to the right complain about liberal judges and judicial activism. After Bush v. Gore, I think that argument was from an intellectual standpoint out the window, but this really takes the cake.
We are talking about the life of a potentially innocent man, four hours from death, and a Mississippi Supreme Court Justice is taking potshots at the Justice Department rather than appropriately adjudicated this case.
In the end, this case now illustrates many problems in the system from the reliance on jailhouse informants to the use of flawed forensic evidence to bias in preemptory challenges and the death qualification process of jurors, to the need to utilize DNA testing.
Despite all of the problems in the system – it is still possible the DNA would show that Mr. Manning committed the horrible crime, but somehow, I think it will show that he hasn’t.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
