Just days before inmate Freddie Owens is set to die by lethal injection in South Carolina, the friend whose testimony helped send Owens to prison is saying he lied to save himself from the death chamber.

Owens is set to die at 6 p.m. Friday at a Columbia prison for the killing of a Greenville convenience store clerk in 1997.

But Owens’ lawyers on Wednesday filed a sworn statement from his co-defendant Steven Golden late Wednesday to try to stop South Carolina from carrying out its first execution in more than a decade.

Prosecutors reiterated that several other witnesses testified that Owens told them he pulled the trigger. And the state Supreme Court refused to stop Owens’ execution last week after Golden, in a sworn statement, said that he had a secret deal with prosecutors that he never told the jury about.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Knowing about how deeply police intimidate, manipulate, and gaslight inmates/people in custody to get these confessions, both confessions should be under deep scrutiny.

    “Criminals” intimated into confession is literally just the police refusing to do their actual jobs and using emotional and mental manipulation to “crack the case.” They didn’t find the killer, they just bullied a plausible suspect into “admitting” they did it.

    Fucking sickening.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      3 months ago

      Confessions in police custody without being verified as voluntarily provided by defense counsel should not be admissible in court as a confession.

      The death penalty should be abolished.

      Appeals should have the same reasonable doubt standard as a trail. If new information introduces reasonable doubt is juat as important as whether they followed procedures during the trial. The whole idea that ‘it should have been introduced at trial’ is commonly used to dismiss appeals based on evidence that was excluded or not available at the time, especially for defendents that can’t afford high priced lawyers.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The whole idea that ‘it should have been introduced at trial’

        It’s almost as if the entire “justice system” is designed to protect a certain class of person while fucking over everyone else. Cue the people so shocked that this “justice system” can easily be abused by people acting in bad faith to enable fascism. People have been brainwashed into believing that the USA isn’t just Diet Fascism. Fascism with a pretty face, fascism with “free speech” so the plebes have a steam valve to release their frustration while also being told that protesting is too disruptive so they need to stick to “free speech zones” miles away from what they’re protesting. Wild that it’s so hard to put together when the original Constitution only allowed land-owning white men to vote.

      • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yes we really need to change the standard for confessions. The other day a guy with a truck tried to run me over walking my dog, I called the police with his license plate, and because there were no cameras the cops won’t investigate. This man deliberately tried to hit me, a random stranger, with his car like a psychopath and the cops said there’s nothing they can do, no evidence. I said, “I’m the evidence. Eye witness testimony.” They said it’s not enough.

        So if the cops feel like “someone saying something,” isn’t good enough, then why are they accepting confessions?

        And it’s kinda funny the police now innately care about video footage since we force them to wear bodycams. How intrinsic to their mindset is the whole “no video, no evidence, can’t be charged,” mindset? Back in the 90s and before, going to trial over eye witness testimony was common. Majority of court cases don’t/didn’t have video footage.