Henry Hanks points to this CNSNews story that claims death penalty opponents are exaggerating. As an opponent of the death penalty, I agree that opponents tend to exaggerate individual cases, but in this side it seems to be the pro-death penalty folks who are exaggerating (or outright lying).
This account of Larry Osborne’s, is almost wholly false,
As one example, Richard Dieter, executive director of DPIC, pointed to the August 2002 release of Larry Osborne from Kentucky’s death row.
“Larry Osborne became the nation’s 102nd exonerated death row inmate since 1973,” Dieter wrote in an Aug. 1, 2002, press release.
“As the number of death row exonerees [sic] continues to rise, the risk of fatal error within our system becomes increasingly clear,” Dieter continued. “This is further evidence that our system of capital punishment is so seriously flawed that all executions should be stopped.”
Osborne was sentenced to death in 1999 following his conviction for the murder of two elderly victims in Whitley County, Ky. He was 17 when the crime was committed and spent more than three years on Kentucky’s death row.
Contrary to the impression left by the beginning of the group’s press release and Dieter’s comments, however, Osborne was not found by the court not to have committed the crime of which he was accused. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed his conviction on procedural grounds. But Osborne’s release was promoted alongside those of two death row inmates who were actually found not guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted; one through DNA evidence, the other by a second jury trial.
First, calling what happened to Osborne a “procedural error” is quite a stretch. A 15-year old boy gave a statement to police that placed Osborne at the scene of a double homicide. Osborne denies that he was there.
Unfortunately, the 15-year old drowned before Osborne’s trial, but the boy’s statement was allowed to be introduced as evidence anyway. The Kentucky Supreme Court agreed with Osborne’s lawyers that the boy’s statement should not have been allowed at the trial.
Second, it is simply a lie to claim that “Osborne was not found by the court not to have committed the crime of which he was accused.” In fact, after the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed his conviction, they ordered a new trial (at which the dead boy’s statement was not used).
At his new trial, Osborne took the stand to testify in his own defense and was acquitted by a jury of his peers.
Sources:
Some in Whitley convinced man got away with murder. Joseph Gerth, The Courier Journal, August 3, 2002.
Researchers Challenge List Of Death Penalty ‘Innocents’. Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.Com, January 8, 2003.