Post by Anja on Jun 15, 2006 16:11:23 GMT -5
Supreme Court Ruling Asserts Paul House' Innocence -- No Reasonable Juror
Could Convict House Viewing All Evidence
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, 2 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)
Could Convict House Viewing All Evidence
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, 2 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)