Tue Aug 22nd, 2017 at 11:28:10 PM EST
I did write
In the USA,the convicted person doesn't "appeal" the sentence. The convict's complaint addresses the injury (certain death) resulting from defective "due process" at trial e.g. errors in findings of fact (evidence) or findings of law (procedure) that preclude an exculpatory verdict. The remedy sought is a new trial.
Following is an example of those principles invoked by the petition, MARCELLUS WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STEVE LARKIN, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Respondent (pdf), reported today
Whether the governor of Missouri is or is not a lawyer is irrelevant. The same, Mr Eric Grietens, confidently stated the certainty of harm to Mr Williams commanded by sentencing. "A sentence of death is the ultimate, permanent punishment. To carry out the death penalty, the people of Missouri must have confidence in the judgment of guilt. In light of new information, I am appointing a Board of Inquiry in this case." That is to investigate findings of fact.
According to Courthouse News, Grietens exercised the limit of his authorities, conferred by the Constitution of Missouri, to stay William's execution and convene a Board of Inquiry "whose duty it shall be to gather information, whether of not admissible in a court of law, bearing on whether or not a person condemned to death should be executed or ... whether the person's sentence should be commuted."
Concurrently, defendant's counsel has petitioned the US Supreme Court, given that the Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed a petition for writ of habeas corpus one week earlier. Defendant has exhausted any recourse to relief from the state, as is required, in order to petition the US Supreme Court to review alleged errors in findings of law.
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Missouri
Based upon the uncontradicted opinions of two DNA experts that petitioner could be excluded as the source of the m ale DNA detected on the knife, petitioner filed an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Missouri Supreme Court on August 14, 2017 that raised a freestanding claim of innocence based on these new DNA test results and other existing evidence that had previously emerged during prior post-conviction proceedings that undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case. In the petition, petitioner also requested an evidentiary hearing before a special master, as authorized by Missouri law, so that a trier of fact could hear and weigh all of the evidence that establishes his innocence of the murder for which he was condemned to die. The following day the Missouri Supreme Court summarily denied the habeas petition, without granting a hearing, in a one page order.
In light of the foregoing facts, this petition presents the following questions:
- Whether a freestanding claim of actual innocence presents a cognizable constitutional claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit an execution from being carried out where new DNA evidence and other reliable evidence establishes that the condemned man is probably innocent.
- Whether the Missouri Supreme Court violated petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment rights in failing to grant him an evidentiary hearing on his claim of innocence and in failing to reexamine the proportionality of his death sentence based up on this newly discovered evidence as required by state law.
"Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Defendant's "reasons", or arguments, to compel an opinion on violations of 8th and 14th from the SCOTUS are presented in the table of contents of the brief.