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.

  • macniel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    134
    ·
    3 months ago

    And the state Supreme Court refused to stop Owens’ execution

    When the blind justice has a hard-on for killing people…

      • macniel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        3 months ago

        still bloodthirsty that they refuse that execution even though new information have come to light.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Anybody can say anything. They held a trial. Testimonies were given under oath. Other witnesses testified.

          You can’t throw out every conviction after-the-fact because somebody says something new. It would be trivial to overturn sentences and lock up the courts for decades.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            44
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Guess innocence isn’t as important as the death penalty. They should have known that someone lied under oath at the time, right?

            Or maybe they could not execute him and take the time to find out if the new information is true or not.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Guess innocence isn’t as important as the death penalty. They should have known that someone lied under oath at the time, right?

              Don’t be obtuse. Multiple lines of evidence were presented to convince 12 people that he was guilty.

              Guess we should just release everybody from prison because we can never know with 100% certainty that anyone ever did anything.

              • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                25
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Don’t be obtuse. Multiple lines of evidence were presented to convince 12 people that he was guilty.

                No matter how many people believe that Haitian immigrants are eating cats, it doesn’t become true just because it is believed by many.

              • catloaf@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                19
                ·
                3 months ago

                There are a lot of options between release and execution. Maybe we should consider those.

              • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                3 months ago

                I hope, if your life ever ends up on the line, you’re met with more sympathy and care than you are willing to show others. You’re being non-chalant about killing someone. Maybe you’re young and will develop empathy, but if this is you and always will be you then frankly I’d make the trade here.

                • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  You’re being non-chalant about killing someone.

                  I’m absolutely not. I don’t believe in the death penalty - and I’m not defending it. But you can’t throw out every case because somebody makes a new claim. Everybody in this thread is believing the new information unquestionably. The trial would have presented other corroborating evidence as well.

                  It’s like how you still need to determine if somebody committed a crime even if they confess.

              • gl4d10@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                but the cheap labor?? the us wouldn’t survive without the prison system, don’t know why they’re wasting good drugs on the guy though, why waste a life unless we get to make some burgers out of him or something, right? god bless

            • Tyfud@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              ·
              3 months ago

              This is the correct answer. It sounds like they’re admitting to perjury. So the case needs to be re-evaluated or set for a mistrial if it was a critical witness testimony that’s been proven to be lying under oath.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Or are they lying now? You can’t know. Do you reevaluate every case when somebody says something other than their sworn testimony?

          • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            3 months ago

            Do you think that if the prosecution made a secret deal with the witness, a deal that the jury didn’t know about, would that make another trial or reexamination of evidence necessary? Because that’s what happened.

            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.

          • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            3 months ago

            Who gives a shit if someone gave an oath beforehand? Do you really think that’s going to stop a liar from lying?

          • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            Anybody can say anything.

            Anybody can say anything to convict someone of a crime.
            But, once the convenience of finding someone guilty has been done, it doesn’t matter what anybody says.

            In the end, the human world works on fabricating answers more than it does on finding more truthful ones.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Testimony should not be considered proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

            Anyone who’s lived among humans knows that human speech often differs from the truth.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Excuse me where can I find a chalk line?

          That would be aisle 28 … wait a second you’re not with the state of South Carolina are you?

          Yes

          Get this guy out of here! We told you you’re banned from here sir