An International Injustice

Have you heard about the case of one Linda Carty? She is an American and British citizen who has been convicted of the murder of a "Joana Rodriguez" (such conviction having happened in 2002).  Ms. Carty claims that, owing to her previous status as a drug informant, she has been framed in this case.  However, state and federal courts disagree with this assessment, and all of Carty's appeals have been exhausted.  (1)

Carty now sits on death row in the state of Texas, awaiting her execution. (1)  Her only hope to be spared now lies with receiving a pardon from President Donald Trump.  

Here's a bit of background on the issues surrounding this case.  

Issue #1: Recanted Testimony.  

 Several witnesses, having testified for the prosecution, later testified that they lied under oath (due to threats made by said prosecution). (2)  Nevertheless, state prosecutors deny that any such threats were made. (3)  Two questions present themselves here, both dealing with the issue of credibility.  First, might the witnesses have lied about threats that were allegedly made to them? Second, why would said witnesses tell such lies, if indeed the allegations of prosecution threats are false? These questions have been left unanswered to this day.  

Issue #2: Rule of Law/Assumption of Innocence.  

 According to the state court, the possibility of false statements having been made is "immaterial", and does not matter.  The defendant has been convicted; as such, "what's done is done".  

"Ultimately, it (does) not matter whether Carty was the ringleader...whether Carty entered Rodriguez's apartment, whether Robinson actually saw Carty put the bag over Rodriguez's head, or even whether Rodriguez was dead when Robinson tore the plastic bag that was wrapped around Rodriguez's head...Carty was convicted as a party to capital murder" -- State Court's Decision Regarding Appeal (of Defendant)  (3)

Let's take a look at that again.  The Court specifically says that the question of Carty's innocence "DOES NOT MATTER".  

 In America, the accused is "innocent until proven guilty".  If the prosecution does not prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt", then the defendant must be acquitted.  Now, if the original testimony of the prosecution witnesses was false, isn't that enough to establish "reasonable doubt"?  (4)

 In addition, does the Court mean to say that the presumption of innocence no longer matters, and that if the state says you're guilty, you're guilty? How "Nineteen Eighty-Four" like that is; "two and two make five, if the Party wishes it"!  (5)

Other Issues:

• The court-appointed lawyer for the defense was clearly incompetent.  Said attorney failed to cross-examine witnesses, and also failed to raise several different legal arguments.  These failures having taken place, the defendant had no chance to be acquitted.  (2)  

• The defendant (as previously stated) is a dual American/British citizen, having been born in a Caribbean territory of the United Kingdom.  That territory is now an independent nation; at the time of the defendant's arrest, it was a British colony.  By international law, British ambassadors are required to be notified immediately upon the arrest of a British citizen.  In the case of Ms. Carty, this notification didn't take place until after Carty's conviction and sentencing.  (6)

• The defendant has testified that, in a violation of due process, she was not allowed access to counsel during her interrogation(s).  (7)

This is the kind of legal case that makes me shake my head.  Ms. Carty is sitting on death row largely due to questionable evidence, as well as "shady" tactics by the prosecution.  To say that this is an injustice is, in my humble opinion, inaccurate.  Rather, it should be said that this case is an INTERNATIONAL injustice.  I hope to see this injustice soon addressed via the remedy of presidential pardon.  Let's get that pardon done and issued, President Trump...before it's too late.  

(Disclaimer: I have no legal qualifications, and do not claim to be an attorney.  This is simply the opinion of an informed and "concerned citizen")

Sources: 

1. "Linda Carty". En.Wikipedia.Org, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Carty. Accessed 1 Dec 2019.

2. "Linda Carty - Reprieve". Reprieve, 2019, https://reprieve.org.uk/case-study/linda-carty/. Accessed 1 Dec 2019.

3. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Ex Parte Linda Carty V. State Of Texas. Court Of Criminal Appeals Of Texas, Austin, TX, 2018.

4. Personal knowledge.  

5. Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Secker & Warburg, 1949.

6. "Linda Carty". En.Wikipedia.Org, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Carty#US_breach_of_international_law. Accessed 1 Dec 2019.

7. "Linda Carty". En.Wikipedia.Org, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Carty#Defense_claims. Accessed 1 Dec 2019.