Skip to main content

View Diary: Justice and Jurisprudence: The Fairbanks Four (34 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So the courts trial verdict, even when wrong.. (7+ / 0-) what matters according to Scalia, who it seems to me has just contradicted himself within two sentences:

    "This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.  Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable."

           -- Judge Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court

     - emphasis added

    The court is "convinced" of "actual innocence" yet that becomes "alleged innovence" with Scalia's ministrations and changed into what amounts to - "actual innocence" taking a back seat to the wrong verdict of guilt.

    The adjective "cognizable" has two distinct (and unrelated) applications within the field of law. A cognizable claim or controversy is one that meets the basic criteria of viability for being tried or adjudicated before a particular tribunal. The term means that the claim or controversy is within the power or jurisdiction of a particular court to adjudicate.

    Thx Greyhawk - yeah let's do go there

    P.S. ianal and could be getting what I said  wrong, but I'm with Blackstone on this:

    "All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer."

         -- Commentaries on the Laws of England
      By William Blackstone, William Hardcastle; Ch. 27, p. 713



Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site