Georgia State University's Center for Access to Justice

 

Very interesting article in GSU's Research magazine on the law school's Center for Access to Justice.

I am currently writing a book on teaching with a few chapters dealing with access to civil justice.  I define civil justice as leveling the playing field for the little guy.

Click here to read about GSU's Center for Access to Justice and its Alternative Spring Break Progam for law students.

Troy Davis Case Discussed on HBO's The Newsroom

I re-watched an episode of the Newsroom (Season 2, Episode 2 if you have HBO Max) which discussed the case.  Here is a short YouTube clip from CNN, the day before Mr. Davis' execution.

This was a death penalty appeal from several years ago.  It gained international attention and some of my students protested at the Georgia Capitol when the Governor denied clemency in 2011.  By a 4-3 vote, the Georgia Supreme Court denied Mr. Davis a new trial, though seven of nine adverse witnesses recanted their testimony and another witness was a suspect in the crime.  The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that decision.  

Here is a portion of the Georgia Dissenting (Minority) opinion:

We have noted that recantations by trial witnesses are inherently suspect, because there is almost always more reason to credit trial testimony over later recantations.   However, it is unwise and unnecessary to make a categorical rule that recantations may never be considered in support of an extraordinary motion for new trial.   The majority cites case law stating that recantations may be considered only if the recanting witness's trial testimony is shown to be the “purest fabrication.” To the extent that this phrase cautions that trial testimony should not be lightly disregarded, it has obvious merit.   However, it should not be corrupted into a categorical rule that new evidence in the form of recanted testimony can never be considered, no matter how trustworthy it might appear.   If recantation testimony, either alone or supported by other evidence, shows convincingly that prior trial testimony was false, it simply defies all logic and morality to hold that it must be disregarded categorically.