Posted on 06/02/2006 10:22:15 PM PDT by SmithL
NASHVILLE - The state Supreme Court on Friday set a June 28 execution date for inmate Sedley Alley, who came within hours of being put to death last month before getting a short reprieve to pursue DNA testing on evidence in his case.
It was the second setback for the condemned killer this week. On Tuesday, a judge refused to release evidence from the 1985 rape and murder of Suzanne M. Collins so Alley's defense team could pay for DNA testing.
Alley was scheduled to die by lethal injection May 17 until he got a 15-day reprieve to seek the testing.
On the day that reprieve expired, Shelby County Criminal Court Judge W. Otis Higgs rejected defense arguments that DNA testing, if performed at the time of the crime, might have changed the outcome of Alley's trial.
More appeals are expected, and the defense team likely will seek a stay of the new execution date. Alley's attorneys didn't immediately return calls seeking comment.
Justice Adolpho A. Birch Jr. dissented from the court order. Birch didn't issue a written dissent in this case but has repeatedly disagreed with other justices over the death penalty because he says the state doesn't have a method for ensuring that the punishment is applied fairly.
Collins, a Marine, was abducted while jogging at a Navy base north of Memphis in 1985. She was severely beaten and taken to a secluded park where her attacker tore a limb from a tree, sharpened one end by rubbing it on pavement, and murdered her with it.
Alley confessed but argued that he was not responsible for murder because he suffered from multiple personalities. The trial jury rejected his insanity plea, and appeals courts refused to hear his complaints that defense lawyers were inefficient.
"testing,if performed at the time of the crime, might have changed the outcome"?
WTF?
because they couldn't analyze the evidence when he committed the crime he should get off?
No, but it's not unreasonable to ask that the testing be done now. PCR was only developed in 1985, so it wasn't available at the time. Although the article doesn't state it, Allen has presumably repudiated the confession. If he's claiming that someone else raped and murdered the victim, the presence of DNA other than his would be evidence supportive of that claim.
he confessed
So? DNA evidence would be conclusive. It is independent of any possible claims of coercion. If the state is confident that they have the correct man, then why oppose it?
his defense is he wasn't responsible because he suffers from multiple personality disorder according to the article(the last paragraph). he plead guilty. what are you defending here?
I'm not sure I understand what "DNA testing" would prove? Can DNA testing today prove that the confessed killer was nuts 21 years ago?
Color me confused....
Well, whatever.... Execute the p.o.s. Just get rid of him.
That no intercourse took place.
He admitted doing it.
He claimed he had a mental condition that caused him to do it.
Nothing a DNA test would change.
BTW, just because his semen is or is not present doesn't mean he didn't kill her.
What on Earth is that thing on her head?
I'd guess it's the female-marine uniform hat.
I think that the DNA testing ought to be ordered. The worst thing that could happen is that they execute him, and then do the testing, and it exhonerates him. That would put a chill on executions for decades, maybe even lead to the elimination of the death penalty.
The only problem that I have with these guys who demand DNA testing is that they wait until the last minute to ask for it. But it's got to be the responsibility of the courts to make sure it gets done, preferrably early, so that it does not delay the execution.
I am not going to argue the point about if the DNA would prove anything, but I do question the timing of the request.
The murder occured over twenty years ago. He has been on death row for a very long time, why wait until the last possible second to bring this point up?
Could his lawyers be playing some legal game?
We have a legal system (as those in that business call it) not a justice system. Once convicted, by definition, he is no longer an innocent man. (In our system, if a man is found not guilty, then by definition, he is innocent regardless if he committed the crime or not.
I am now firmly convinced the concept of one hundred guilty people should be let go rather then to convict an innocent man is wrong. Why is the criminal justice system the only thing we expect 100% perfection?
My reason is simple. If you let 100 known killer free, then the chance are some of those killers will kill again. (There should be no argument over that, there have been a number of cases where condemned men, have managed to escape punishiment, and later were freed, only to return to their former ways, including killing innocent people.
So the price we pay to keep from executing an "innocent" man, is the death of other truly innocent victims.
Unlike those murdered, before a person can be executed, they are tried, can offer a defense, have the verdict appealed. A murder victim is just dead.
Those that defend every death row immate are not defending the person because they believe they are innocent, they do so because they do not believe in capital punishment. They have managed to throw enough sand in the process to make it almost unworkable (and then point to this fact as a reason to do away with capital punishment).
It is for that reason, I do not take any of these last minute appears seriously. Those that are fighting capital punishing by putting as many obstacles in the way of the process as possible, and making it as expensive as they can win either way. I do not belive for a second they care one bit for any individual on death row, to them they are just props to assist them in acchieving their stated goals, no death penalty.
If they win, then more innocent people will die then were ever convicted and executed by the state.
Or he could have had a mental condition that caused him to make a false confession.
The Psychology of False Confessions
If I were the Judge and if I were 99.9% sure that he was lying, I would still allow the DNA test for my own peace of mind so that I could be 100% sure.
DNA testing is so routine nowadays that it raises serious suspicions of a cover-up when a judicial system refuses to do it.
How does DNA testing affect these facts, at all? Make him die, the sooner, the better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.