Lingering doubt may not be sufficient to overcome a conviction. But in a civilized society it most certainly should be sufficient to overcome the death penalty. Not even the victim’s family wanted him executed.
There are two issues here. Only one is “the law”, which allows for some level of doubt when imposing the death penalty. That law is something we can - and should - change. Either raise the standard to absolute certainty or eliminate death as punishment. In no circumstance should a just society execute someone who might be innocent.
The other issue is political. This governor exercised his elected authority to choose cruelty over justice for purely political reasons. That we cannot change.
This is a careful parsing of the evidence. However, I disagree with its conclusion. Where the penalty is infinite (death), the level of due process owed to the defendant ought likewise to be infinite (procedural perfection and zero doubt as to guilt). Since that level of due process is unachievable, there should be no death penalty.
Credit for this argument goes to Professor Charles Black in his book Capital Punishment: The Inevitability of Whim and Caprice.
Did Williams claim Asaro framed him in the way you suggest, either during the trial or after? Or are you just speculating based on the available information? It would be strange if he stayed loyal to her and never pointed the finger at her after all these years.
I don't have the trial transcript, just the descriptions of the trial in public filings, so I'm not sure how Williams' lawyer put the case together in the closing argument. But based on the descriptions of the evidence, it appears that Williams' defense theory was the "framing" theory. At the trial, Williams didn't testify, but Williams' lawyer elicited testimony that (1) Asaro was seen carrying a laptop in August 1998, (2) Asaro tried to sell a laptop to Williams' brother for $100 in August 1998, and (3) Asaro had access to the car (there was testimony that she entered the car repeatedly while Williams was in jail and used a screwdriver to open the trunk). Also, Williams' lawyer tried to elicit testimony from Roberts that Williams said Asaro gave him the laptop, but it was excluded on hearsay grounds.
> Should there be a rule that a defendant shouldn’t be executed unless there’s physical evidence tying him to the crime? No. ... It’s also ahistorical—scientific analysis of physical evidence didn’t exist for most of American history.
Presumably you are referring to sentencing guidelines here? Why does it matter if they are ahistorical?
I mean, it would be ahistorical to say, “a person can’t constitutionally be executed unless there’s physical evidence” because the death penalty existed in the United States long before scientific analysis of physical evidence became reliable. Lay witness testimony has always been viewed as sufficient.
Why don't you have access to the trial transcript? Is it private or sealed, or did the state not record or preserve the transcript in a capital murder case?
Another excellent article; thanks. As a layman, my belief is that the death penalty is only appropriate in those rare cases where the defendant's guilt is beyond any doubt, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. And I could be talked into extending this "beyond any doubt" standard to assessing a sentence of life without possibility of parole, also.
As a layman, I would say that trials do not necessarily determine whether a defendant commited a crime, although a trial might incidentally do that. Trials deternine whether a judge or jury opines that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the mere happenstance of what evidence is available, the skill and resources of the attorneys, the biases of judges and jurors, and the degree of honesty by police and prosecutors. And a not-guilty verdict does not equate to innocence, it equates to not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously, there shouldn't be the death penalty.
As a recently retired attorney whose 50-year career was devoted exclusively to criminal appeals in both state & federal court (with one winner at SCOTUS), I completely agree with your analysis. Furthermore, there is an oddity in the defendant’s supporters position: they claim that he was “innocent”, yet the relief they seek is life in prison instead of execution. An “innocent” man should be released immediately, not imprisoned. These are irreconcilable positions..
Lingering doubt may not be sufficient to overcome a conviction. But in a civilized society it most certainly should be sufficient to overcome the death penalty. Not even the victim’s family wanted him executed.
There are two issues here. Only one is “the law”, which allows for some level of doubt when imposing the death penalty. That law is something we can - and should - change. Either raise the standard to absolute certainty or eliminate death as punishment. In no circumstance should a just society execute someone who might be innocent.
The other issue is political. This governor exercised his elected authority to choose cruelty over justice for purely political reasons. That we cannot change.
This is a careful parsing of the evidence. However, I disagree with its conclusion. Where the penalty is infinite (death), the level of due process owed to the defendant ought likewise to be infinite (procedural perfection and zero doubt as to guilt). Since that level of due process is unachievable, there should be no death penalty.
Credit for this argument goes to Professor Charles Black in his book Capital Punishment: The Inevitability of Whim and Caprice.
Did Williams claim Asaro framed him in the way you suggest, either during the trial or after? Or are you just speculating based on the available information? It would be strange if he stayed loyal to her and never pointed the finger at her after all these years.
I don't have the trial transcript, just the descriptions of the trial in public filings, so I'm not sure how Williams' lawyer put the case together in the closing argument. But based on the descriptions of the evidence, it appears that Williams' defense theory was the "framing" theory. At the trial, Williams didn't testify, but Williams' lawyer elicited testimony that (1) Asaro was seen carrying a laptop in August 1998, (2) Asaro tried to sell a laptop to Williams' brother for $100 in August 1998, and (3) Asaro had access to the car (there was testimony that she entered the car repeatedly while Williams was in jail and used a screwdriver to open the trunk). Also, Williams' lawyer tried to elicit testimony from Roberts that Williams said Asaro gave him the laptop, but it was excluded on hearsay grounds.
Excellent as ever.
> Should there be a rule that a defendant shouldn’t be executed unless there’s physical evidence tying him to the crime? No. ... It’s also ahistorical—scientific analysis of physical evidence didn’t exist for most of American history.
Presumably you are referring to sentencing guidelines here? Why does it matter if they are ahistorical?
I mean, it would be ahistorical to say, “a person can’t constitutionally be executed unless there’s physical evidence” because the death penalty existed in the United States long before scientific analysis of physical evidence became reliable. Lay witness testimony has always been viewed as sufficient.
Why don't you have access to the trial transcript? Is it private or sealed, or did the state not record or preserve the transcript in a capital murder case?
Another excellent article; thanks. As a layman, my belief is that the death penalty is only appropriate in those rare cases where the defendant's guilt is beyond any doubt, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. And I could be talked into extending this "beyond any doubt" standard to assessing a sentence of life without possibility of parole, also.
As a layman, I would say that trials do not necessarily determine whether a defendant commited a crime, although a trial might incidentally do that. Trials deternine whether a judge or jury opines that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the mere happenstance of what evidence is available, the skill and resources of the attorneys, the biases of judges and jurors, and the degree of honesty by police and prosecutors. And a not-guilty verdict does not equate to innocence, it equates to not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously, there shouldn't be the death penalty.
flew the coop
As a recently retired attorney whose 50-year career was devoted exclusively to criminal appeals in both state & federal court (with one winner at SCOTUS), I completely agree with your analysis. Furthermore, there is an oddity in the defendant’s supporters position: they claim that he was “innocent”, yet the relief they seek is life in prison instead of execution. An “innocent” man should be released immediately, not imprisoned. These are irreconcilable positions..