That is odd, if there is no evidence that links him to the crime why not argue to let him go? Is that just from a desire to have someone punished, no matter who it is.
Now, as to whether this evidence is solid enough for a death penalty conviction, that's tougher to say. But there's plenty of evidence.
Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. Those people claim that he confessed to them, but there is a lot more context. Here is what the linked story says about the "he confessed" part:
> The investigation had gone cold until a jail inmate named Henry Cole, a man with a lengthy record, claimed that Mr. Williams confessed to him that he committed the murder while they were both locked up in jail. Cole directed police to Laura Asaro, a woman who had briefly dated Mr. Williams and had an extensive record of her own.
> Both of these individuals were known fabricators; neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. Their statements were inconsistent with their own prior statements, with each other’s accounts, and with the crime scene evidence, and none of the information they provided could be independently verified.
You're mistaken. There are many exceptions to the evidentiary rules against hearsay in the US, and one of the more common exceptions is a statement made by the opposing party (i.e. while the prosecution is questioning a witness, a statement made by the defendant to that witness) (Rule 801(d)(2)). It's evidence.
Your issues with the credibility of those witnesses are valid, and the defense had the opportunity to bring those issues up at trial (that's why we have jury trials and why you have a right to defend yourself at your jury trial). They certainly weren't the only pieces of evidence against him (there's a lot), and I'm sure the jury considered that.
Careful- it we're considering their history, then Mr Williams has a history of over a dozen counts of armed violence, burglary, robbery, and assault.
> this is hearsay and not evidence
Conflicting reports say that Asano provided verified information that had not been publicized. And Asano refused a cash reward for relaying the confessions she had heard. Regardless,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501
> Nothing contained in this section shall bar the admission in evidence of any confession made or given voluntarily by any person to any other person without interrogation by anyone, or at any time at which the person who made or gave such confession was not under arrest or other detention
> Their statements were inconsistent with their own prior statements, with each other’s accounts, and with the crime scene evidence, and none of the information they provided could be independently verified.
Not only were the two known liars, but their accounts could not be verified, and they conflict with each other as well as the existing evidence. That seems enough reason to me to call their testimony into question.
Also, I'm a little curious about your assertion:
> Conflicting reports say that Asano provided verified information that had not been publicized
When TFA specifically included the following:
> neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police.
That, coupled with the fact that apparently none of the evidence at the scene was linked to Marcellus Williams makes me wonder how he was ever convicted in the first place. If we can take TFA at its word, the whole thing smells wrong.
I was also using a statement from the governor,
https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/state-carry-o...
who makes some assertions which contradict the innocence project's.
Either you trust the government, and agree that they should have waited.
Or you don't trust the government, in which case you really can't trust them to kill someone.
So which is it?
Gotcha. Thanks!
> neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police.
from The Innocence Project seems carefully worded to imply that they didn't say anything that mattered, while still leaving open that they provided information that the police had, but which had not be publicly released.
This is hard to fake and seems like pretty compelling evidence that the informant is telling the truth.
https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/state-carry-o...
This is all superfluous to the question of the credibility of the two witnesses. It isn't about being "fair" and treating Williams and the two witnesses the same -- one is on trial, the others are not.
I think you are out of your element. To my understanding hearsay refers to a claim made by someone not in court. In this case the girlfriend and jailmate were called as witnesses and gave testimony in court.
Witnesses are evidence and they are one of the oldest forms of evidence, your view that evidence is only material is a gross misunderstanding of trial procedures.
> Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.
Tying the two together, basically it would be anything that can't be verified (in court) by the one who the witness is 'quoting'.
Regarding witness testimony, I don't think the tradition of it makes it any more iron clad. We used to have a lot more testimony of sorcery and such as well that got people killed. Further, we have only recently begun to study it scientifically. From what I gather, from my very limited knowledge of the studies thus far, it doesn't look good for eye-witness accuracy in general.
When the parties are present for cross examination it's not hearsay.
That's exactly what I just said.
> The girlfriend never requested the reward for information about Ms. Gayle’s murder, despite claims that she was only interested in money.
> The woman at first denied having information about the crime, prosecutors’ motion states. But after meeting with police several times – and being promised charges she was facing would be dropped and told she would be eligible for the reward – Asaro eventually cooperated, telling police she had indeed seen Williams on the afternoon of the murder, the motion states.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/21/us/marcellus-williams-missour...
Note that it's possible the person you are replying to was using the everyday "observation increases relative likelihood of theory" definition of evidence rather than the legal one.
Laws are generally clearer if you write them as general definitions and general rules and if those cover too much carve out exceptions in the rules rather than the definitions. It would work to make the exceptions to the definitions instead, or to both the definitions and rules, but that is usually going to be more complicated and less clear.
For hearsay the general definition is "an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of what the statement asserts" and the general rule is "hearsay is not admissible", and that is narrowed by a bunch of exceptions to the "hearsay is not admissible" rule. As far as I remember pretty much everyone has left the definition untouched.
Similar motivation as exceptions for error handling
> if Susan is unavailable for cross-examination, the answer is hearsay
> The defendant in a criminal case is always available, so any statement they make out of court is never hearsay.
That's also not quite correct. A declarant is considered to be unavailable for example if they refuse to testify about the subject matter despite the court ordering them to. They are also considered to be unavailable if they testify that they cannot remember the subject matter. See rule 804(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence for the criteria for being unavailable.
(I'm using FRE because that seems to be what others are using. Really though we should be using Missouri's rules of evidence. I think most state's rules of evidence are fairly close to the FRE so that's probably reasonable).
> "There is no reliable evidence proving that Marcellus Williams committed the crime for which he is scheduled to be executed on Sept. 24. The State destroyed or corrupted the evidence that could conclusively prove his innocence and the available DNA and other forensic crime-scene evidence does not match him."
DNA evidence is based on proven science, and the DNA evidence that was not destroyed by the state is exculpatory.
Ultimately I think this undermines their cause and hurts their ability to save truly innocent people.
Perhaps so. I'm not familiar with the details of the case.
But this I do know: prior felony convictions are manifestly not evidence.
Presenting them as such causes me to seriously doubt the broader argument you are trying to make here.
Victims and their family’s can and often do oppose capital punishment on moral grounds, same as anybody else.
They want him punished but believe that killing him is a moral wrong, or they’re more comfortable with the risk that he’s innocent if he’s in prison with the possibility of being exonerated rather than killed.
“Evidence of innocence” is a very problematic concept. Have you thought through what is your evidence of your innocence? (Not just regarding to this case, but regarding all cases involving dead or missing people.) Should we execute you if you ever come up short?
Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt — all the onus is on the prosecution to prove that you indisputably committed that crime. In this case unreliable evidence was used without which this standard likely would not have been met.
Once you’ve been convicted (in this case on shoddy evidence) the onus is on you to offer evidence that you’re actually innocent - a reasonable doubt is no longer sufficient, you need to offer strong, new evidence that disproves the already decided “fact” that you committed the crime.
The standard before your convicted is that the jury must find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard after you've been convicted is that you must have found substantial new evidence that warrants reconsidering the verdict, or you must show that the original trial was mishandled somehow. "I think the jury was stupid" is not a valid appeal.
I think this re-raises the "trap door" question.
In this case, up until conviction you are presumed innocent and guilt must be proven. Post conviction most of the appeals process is bared if not filed within 14 days of conviction (it used to be forever but then the US Justice system decided woohhh there that's too long and burdensome on the Justice system so 14 days was deemed a reasonable change to the previous 'forever'. A totally reasonable happy middle). After 14 days from conviction really the only relief available is to prove actual innocence, a much higher and more difficult standard to meet.
With the caveat that this is coming from someone with zero training in law: what a load of horseshit.
"evidence of innocence"...
I was once accused of a financial crime, around taking money from an account. I was, admittedly, guilty, however, the amount claimed was nearly triple the amount that I had taken (there were multiple shenanigans happening).
When my attorney and I said "Actually, we think the amount is $X, not $3X, because x y and z", we had an extraordinarily difficult time with the Prosecutor, who wanted US to justify why we thought the amount was only $X.
Apropos of any plea or deal or whatever, no... the onus is on the Prosecution to verifiably demonstrate the loss. Not for me to justify why I think the amount is different. Ironically, the justification we did provide came from the Prosecution. "You said the loss was $Z, including $Y in checks which were diverted. Witness statements and other testimony showed that these checks were NOT diverted, by their own words. Ergo, the loss is $Z-$Y."
Prosecutor was still "you need to show me the math for what that equates to". "No, that amounts to incriminating self, and is, bluntly, not my responsibility. You need to assert how you came to the number you are claiming in the charge."
Can't really defend yourself if you're dead.