Man executed for murder, despite lack of direct evidence, only testimony of accomplice

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by kazenatsu, Jan 16, 2021.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Two men, Dustin Higgs and Willis Haynes, were seen driving off in a van with three women they knew. That was the last time these women were seen, and the bodies of the three women were later found along the road near a nature preserve. They had been shot dead.

    Both of the two men were arrested for murder. While sitting in prison awaiting trial, Haynes was interrogated, and claimed that Higgs handed him a gun and told him to kill the three women, which he claimed he did do.

    Both the two men were convicted of murder, despite no other direct evidence.

    Higgs maintained his claim that he was innocent of the murders.

    Some of you might not immediately see the problem with this. After all, one of two men admitted guilt, and claimed the other was guilty too.

    Well, here is the problem with that. Haynes was being charged with murder. They told him he was going to get the death penalty. The man was under pressure to admit his own guilt and testify against his friend, so that he would not be sentenced to the death penalty.
    And that is exactly what happened. Higgs was sentenced to the death penalty, and Haynes was sentenced only to life in prison.

    It's possible that Haynes lied about Higgs being involved in the murder, because he was afraid of getting the death penalty. Possibly he wanted to find a way to admit guilt, to get the plea bargain, while trying to minimize a little bit his own level of guilt, and testify against his friend, to minimize his chance, as much as possible (in his mind) of getting the death penalty. (All those things would make the prosecutor less inclined to recommend the death penalty)

    Higgs was convicted based on the testimony of a someone who had nothing to lose, and possibly something to gain from the testimony.

    Haynes later, after the trial, claimed in a sworn affidavit that Higgs had not forced or bullied him to do anything.

    The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal against Higgs being executed, although Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, believing Higgs should not get the death penalty.

    Higgs was recently executed, despite a petition that was going around for clemency.

    The nature preserve where the murders happened to take place, was on federal land. That meant the case was under federal jurisdiction. If the murders had taken place just a little distance down the road, it would have been under Maryland state jurisdiction, and under the laws of Maryland, Higgs would not have been eligible for the death penalty since it was not alleged he actually shot the women himself.

    The prosecution was never able to present evidence of a strong motive for the murders.

    There were some additional factors that may have complicated the case, although not really direct evidence. Higgs as well as the others involved were African American. Both Higgs and Haynes had been involved in selling cocaine, which was a serious crime, and police had found a handgun in the home of Higgs, although that gun was not related to the murders.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2021
  2. Chrizton

    Chrizton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2020
    Messages:
    7,707
    Likes Received:
    3,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Testimony by a co-conspirator is direct evidence. Perhaps "objective" is what you meant.
     
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, but the problem (or issue) here is testimony from someone else who is charged with a very serious crime and has nothing to lose, knowing that if they give that testimony, it will be likely to reduce the punishment they get.

    In other words, the way the justice system (prosecutors and judges) handle punishment, it could in some cases be creating an incentive and motivating certain persons to give false testimony accusing someone else.

    And who knows, for all we know, Haynes might have been carrying some secret grudge against Higgs about something, and now knowing he himself was going to be spending life in prison, he viewed this as his opportunity to "get back", by accusing Haynes of being involved in the crime.

    How much can the testimony of someone, in prison for a very long time, with very little to lose be relied upon?

    In some individuals, there's even an evil psychology, like "If I'm going to suffer, you're going to suffer also." If they go down, they want to drag others down with them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2021
  4. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If someone who is going to be convicted of murder and will be spending life in prison says that you told him to commit that murder, do you believe it would then be okay for authorities to execute you?

    (I mean, would that be the proper thing to do, in that situation)
     
  5. Chrizton

    Chrizton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2020
    Messages:
    7,707
    Likes Received:
    3,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We live in an imperfect world populated by imperfet and sometime bad people. If you are walking down the street and see one of your co-workers kill someone and there is no other evidence, should we believe you? Maybe you want their job. Maybe they stole your stapler. Maybe they asked out the person you were secretly interested in. The world is full of maybes.

    I had someone in LE tell me that they find that juries increasingly don't care about eyewitness testimony. They want to see the video of the confession or the crime. They want there to be forensic evidence. They want to know if someone's cell phone was tracked to the area at the time of the crime.

    Sure innocent people get convicted. Sometimes those innocent people enter a guilty plea just to be over with it quick to speed up the process because they cannot afford our payola bonding system or a lawyer or think they will be convicted anyway because they are poor, black, a man or whatever. There is only so much we can do as far of the system, and it would be far easier to address these type issues than whether or not a jury gets it wrong.
     
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In situations like this where we have reasons not to be entirely sure, isn't it just possible to reduce the punishment?
    I mean, still punish them to maintain a strong incentive against committing murder, and keep the existence of a strong certainty of punishment (to deter other possible would-be murderers) but still have some mercy on them knowing there is a small possibility they might not have done it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2021
  7. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It wasn't just that evidence. A 2nd person was charged with being accessory after the fact and provided corroborating testimony. He was later sentenced to 7 years in jail for his role. Then there would be fact that Higgs would have to be able to account for his whereabouts at the time of the murder - if not to Police then to his defense lawyer. Police also had access to information confirming the women owed his money for drugs. Which goes to motive but more the the point it opens up a means of locating other witnesses who could testify that the victims and Higgs were at least known to each other. There are a whole host of leads regarding the van, the firearm, the apartment where they met on the night that would have been followed up. And of course Police had Higg's initial statements to them about the murder. If he made any false denial's when initially interviewed then those also potentially become evidential i.e. as indications of guilt.

    The co-accused testifying is merely the most damming evidence. If that's ALL they had then IMO authorities would almost certainly have offered him a deal similar to the informants.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2021

Share This Page