Posted on 06/26/2007 8:45:47 AM PDT by Graybeard58
ST. LOUIS To the very end, convicted killer Larry Griffin shouted his innocence to the world through court filings, in pleas to the governor and to nearly any reporter willing to listen.
None of it helped. Griffin, strapped to a white gurney, was executed by injection.
Now, 12 years later, St. Louis' chief prosecutor will soon release a report offering an opinion on whether Missouri put an innocent man to death.
The report, two years in the making, has no legal weight but could have a powerful effect on the nation's death penalty debate. Nearly 1,100 people have been executed in the United States in the modern era that began with Gary Gilmore's death by firing squad in Utah in 1977.
A finding of innocence could confirm what capital punishment foes have been arguing for years: that the risk of a grave and irreversible mistake by the criminal justice system is too high to allow the death penalty.
Nevertheless, the findings in the Griffin case may not settle the argument over whether he committed the crime. His guilt or innocence hinges not on DNA or other powerfully persuasive forensic evidence, but on witness accounts.
In the years since his 1981 conviction, two crucial witnesses have recanted or wavered, and a third witness who could have helped Griffin never took the stand, for reasons that are unclear.
Griffin was convicted in the 1980 drive-by shooting of 19-year-old Quintin Moss in St. Louis. Authorities said he had a motive: Moss, a drug dealer and alleged hit man, had been accused of killing Griffin's older brother six months earlier.
They also had a witness identifying Griffin as the passenger in the 1968 Chevy Impala who fired the 13 shots that struck Moss. Griffin was executed for killing Moss in 1995.
At Griffin's trial, the testimony of Robert Fitzgerald was crucial because no other eyewitnesses or physical evidence linked Griffin to the killing.
At an appeal hearing in 1993, however, Fitzgerald recanted, saying police coerced him into fingering Griffin by showing him only one picture, of Griffin, and saying, "We happen to know who did it," according to Gross' report.
Fitzgerald also testified in the 1993 hearing that after seeing Griffin in court, he was no longer sure he was the man in the car.
There's also the question of why Wallace Conners was never called to testify by either the prosecution or the defense. Conners was near Moss at the time of the killing and was shot in the buttocks. He said he got a good look at the killer. Conners had known Griffin for years and said he was certain Griffin was not the shooter.
Rachel Smith, a city prosecutor, has led a team of three attorneys and two homicide detectives who interviewed 80 people, including police officers, drug dealers and prostitutes.
Smith said she will turn in the report to St. Louis' chief prosecutor, Jennifer Joyce, by the end of the week. They said the report would be released to the public soon afterward.
More innocents will be killed by murderers who are not executed (in prison, or once released or if they escape) than will be killed by the state in erroneous executions.
Except one is a crime committed by an indvidual who needs to pay for that crime to society.
The other is a crime committed by the state in the name of its citizens.
Life in prison with no parole and extreme isolation is adequate punishment. God does the rest.
The DNA evidence of course proved his guilt. I'm sure that this one will turn out just the same.
P.l.e.a.s.e. Everyone is loaded with false memories. That’s just the way the mind works.
There is nothing in the article that would lead to any conclusion on this case. Especially nothing that would drastically alter the debate on capital punishment.
Agreed. The option for "zero" innocent deaths is not really a real option at all (but the MSM never point this out).
However, the more I see how flawed our current legal system is....how flawed many of our police departments are (nothing more then revenue enhancers first and foremost).....The more I'm for the notion that the death penalty may not be available in actual practice (while I believe in it in theory).
But we have court systems that are simply about $$$...not about justice. We have judges who are more self-absorbed in themselves and their influence...then the truth or facts.....
Kind of makes one not want to hang out with gang-banging drug dealers. One could be found guilty of a murder he didn’t commit just from the company he keeps.
Eyewitness testimony is very unreliable.
As a matter of full disclosure, I’m opposed to the death penalty, but it seems to me that we should all be able to agree that if we are going to have it, at least it ought to be based on more than flimsy evidence.
I am strongly commited to the death penalty...however I am equally commited to making certain that only the guilty are put to death...on first blush putting someone to death only on the word of another raises my eyebrow...Nyfong comes to mind..
As Ron White would say (paraphrase)if more than three people saw you do what you did jack you go to the front of the line...other states are stopping executions - my state (Texas) is putting in an express lane!!!
A 1968 Chevy Impala....sweet!
As a matter of full disclosure, so am I.
I appreciate and understand the sentiment. However, here now on earth in a fallen creation, prosecutors need the death penalty as a tool. Without the threat of the death penalty, defendants will be less likely to plea and take their chances in court. The result, the system that occasionally executes an innocent person will let multiple murders go free and several hundred more off with lighter sentences.
“However, the more I see how flawed our current legal system is....how flawed many of our police departments are (nothing more then revenue enhancers first and foremost).....The more I’m for the notion that the death penalty may not be available in actual practice (while I believe in it in theory).”
George Will and William Buckley came to the same conclusion as you.
That’s kind of funny coming from a German.
The St. Louis prosecutor has an agenda.
Its just that simple.
St Louis needs to get a new prosecutor. This one isnt prepared to prosecute people for Capitol offenses.
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.