Post by scotkaz on Jun 16, 2006 6:16:44 GMT -5
Supreme Court Ruling Asserts Paul House' Innocence
by Randy Tatel, Tennessee Independent Media Center
No Reasonable Juror Could Convict House Viewing All Evidence
Nashville: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the innocence claims
of Paul Gregory House were strong enough to have his case remanded back to
Eastern District Federal Judge Jarvis. By a 5-3 vote the court ruled that no
reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack reasonable doubt.
"Innocence matters, that's what the U.S. Supreme Court asserted," said Randy
Tatel. "The court has rejected the view that if evidence of your innocence
is found after you've been convicted, you have no right to have that
evidence brought to the attention of a court."
That view has been fateful for Paul House and his mother Joyce. Apparently,
prosecutor Paul Philips who put Paul House on Tennessees death row more than
20 years ago would rather execute an innocent person than to see justice
finally done. Philips prosecuted House for the murder of Carolyn Muncey in
Union County in 1985. The motive given by Philips for the murder was to
cover up the rape of the victim.
In overturning the 6th Circuit ruling the U.S. Supreme Court considered that
DNA evidence has now proven that Paul Gregory House did not rape Carolyn
Muncey before she was murdered in Union County in 1985. In addition, two
witnesses say the victims husband, Hubert Little Hube Muncey, confessed to
killing his wife accidentally after he had been out at the local community
center, drinking and dancing. The jury never heard that testimony.
The court ruled that no reasonable jury would have convicted House, said
Tatel. That is, Paul House is not guilty.
Houses case made national news last October when the 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals voted 8-7 that the new evidence warranted neither a new trial nor
Houses immediate release. The dissenting opinion in Houses 6th Circuit
ruling noted that, This case and the few empirical studies that we have
reinforce Justice (Sandra Day) O'Connor's view that the system is allowing
some innocent defendants to be executed.
The 6th Circuits dissenting opinion asserted that, Once the initial trial
and appeal have occurred, the State, and its officials who have prosecuted,
sentenced, and reviewed the case, is inclined to believe that the State was
right all along. They tend to close ranks and resist admission of error.
The system is designed to insure fairness of procedure. It is not concerned
with fairness in the outcome even if, as Justice Antonin Scalia has often
asserted, that means executing an innocent person.
Innocence does matter, said Tatel. Paul House should be given a new trial
immediately, or he should be exonerated and released from death row.
---
Source : Tennessee Independent Media Center
www.tnimc.org/feature/display/16025/index.php
by Randy Tatel, Tennessee Independent Media Center
No Reasonable Juror Could Convict House Viewing All Evidence
Nashville: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the innocence claims
of Paul Gregory House were strong enough to have his case remanded back to
Eastern District Federal Judge Jarvis. By a 5-3 vote the court ruled that no
reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack reasonable doubt.
"Innocence matters, that's what the U.S. Supreme Court asserted," said Randy
Tatel. "The court has rejected the view that if evidence of your innocence
is found after you've been convicted, you have no right to have that
evidence brought to the attention of a court."
That view has been fateful for Paul House and his mother Joyce. Apparently,
prosecutor Paul Philips who put Paul House on Tennessees death row more than
20 years ago would rather execute an innocent person than to see justice
finally done. Philips prosecuted House for the murder of Carolyn Muncey in
Union County in 1985. The motive given by Philips for the murder was to
cover up the rape of the victim.
In overturning the 6th Circuit ruling the U.S. Supreme Court considered that
DNA evidence has now proven that Paul Gregory House did not rape Carolyn
Muncey before she was murdered in Union County in 1985. In addition, two
witnesses say the victims husband, Hubert Little Hube Muncey, confessed to
killing his wife accidentally after he had been out at the local community
center, drinking and dancing. The jury never heard that testimony.
The court ruled that no reasonable jury would have convicted House, said
Tatel. That is, Paul House is not guilty.
Houses case made national news last October when the 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals voted 8-7 that the new evidence warranted neither a new trial nor
Houses immediate release. The dissenting opinion in Houses 6th Circuit
ruling noted that, This case and the few empirical studies that we have
reinforce Justice (Sandra Day) O'Connor's view that the system is allowing
some innocent defendants to be executed.
The 6th Circuits dissenting opinion asserted that, Once the initial trial
and appeal have occurred, the State, and its officials who have prosecuted,
sentenced, and reviewed the case, is inclined to believe that the State was
right all along. They tend to close ranks and resist admission of error.
The system is designed to insure fairness of procedure. It is not concerned
with fairness in the outcome even if, as Justice Antonin Scalia has often
asserted, that means executing an innocent person.
Innocence does matter, said Tatel. Paul House should be given a new trial
immediately, or he should be exonerated and released from death row.
---
Source : Tennessee Independent Media Center
www.tnimc.org/feature/display/16025/index.php