together. two weeks ago we won the landmark decision on new standards one of the things the court talked about, and it s true across the country, one of the last things you would ever do is bring all the witnesses together to talk about what they saw. that is a total no-no. in addition to that, the police again, another no-no. so, you know, we know a lot more now about how to at least minimize eyewitness misidentification, the single greatest cause of and we re getting cooperation of the police. i can tell you that police officials in georgia that we work with, who are instituting some of these eyewitness reforming tried to make their views known about this case, and their do you understand about
date. what i ve saeen in the abu jama case is a mischaracterization of what s presented to the jury. i listen with a very skeptical ear. if it s the same way in which there s been a whisper down the lane in the abu jamal case, i m loathed to buy into the presentation of the facts. i might say one other thing, if i may, you re discussing with eugene not only what transpired in texas and what s taking place in georgia, also the trifecta is what s going on in connecticut as we re having this conversation. i ve paid very close attention to the petit case. today there was testimony about this case. a home invasion. cheshire, connecticut, a doctor survives, his wife and daughters are dead. they aired an audio confession from one of the guys who s being tried. the other is being convicted of how happen 11-year-old had to perform oral sex on this dirt bag, tied her to her bed and set
levels? if he had this kind of legal firepower in his trial, he would have been off, it seems to me. how can they have such great legal help now and he didn t seem to have very good trial support when he was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death? where did they all come from? and where were they in the first place? it s very often the case that the states don t spend a lot of money for people who can t afford their own lawyers and the kind of defense that people get in death penalty cases has been a subject of great concern in the legal community for decades, that there isn t sufficient legal support for people the first time around. you very often happen in a case like this, as more people get interested, lawyers come to the case and find things they think should have been done that weren t done in the first go-around. without getting i give you
doesn t feel any simply for? as a program matter, that is partially correct. a great of what goes into a jury s deliberations on a death penalty case is very, very emotional. whether or not they feel any sort of sympathy or there s anything redeeming about that defense, that is indeed a lot of what goes on. and in this case there were two people involved, allegations always going into the trial, two people were beating up a homeless guy, an off-duty police officers, very compelling, working an extra shift as a night watchman comes upon the situation, he could have avoided, yet he intervened, he s shot dead doing the best thing a citizen or police officer can do. tremendous sympathy, as there should be, i mean personally i feel it.
statements now that they believe that troy davis is innocent. they say they were coerced by police, one man saying he was too young at that time, intimidated by the police. so he told them what they wanted to hear. another witness said he made up the whole confession and made it up on what he saw and heard on tv. obviously they have differ opinions and philosophies on what that justice should not. great reporting, thanh trong, thank you very much. let s bring in political analyst gene robinson a columnist for the washington post. thank you for joining us. we also have michael from radio talk show. thank you, michael. both of you looked at this from different lenses in trying to figure out this case. i wonder if it s about facts at this point, if it s not about