In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision to send consideration of Troy Davis' habeas case back to a federal court in Georgia for review, its worth reconsidering the law that made Davis' journey so harrowing in the first place. Despite the mountain of exculpatory evidence that emerged in the aftermath of his conviction (recanting witnesses, allegations of police coercion) and the weakness of the initial case (zero physical evidence) Davis' appeals were denied time and again on legal technicalities arising from provisions in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which limited habeas petitions from prisoners sentenced to death in most circumstances. It was passed in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing, and my understanding is this was partially to prevent people like Timothy McVeigh from using legal maneuvers to stay their executions. (Incidentally, it is also the law that established the "material support for terrorism" charges that the government has used to secure an astronomical conviction rate against suspected terrorists.)
In this case though, what the law did was prevent a potentially innocent man from obtaining habeas relief in a case where he almost certainly deserved it. I understand the government's interest in preventing frivolous appeals from the convicted in capitol cases, but it's not in the interest of the government or society to execute the innocent, no matter what Antonin Scalia says. It's worth revisiting the habeas provisions of this law and seeing whether it can't be amended to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. Constitutional concerns about AEDPA also aren't new, even if the law has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the past.
-- A. Serwer
