Death row 180 spurs precedent change
Published May 2, 2003
In the days after the Missouri Supreme Court overturned Joseph Amrine's death sentence, some observers are saying a precedent is being set.
"The Supreme Court set precedent by putting evidence before constitutional concern," said Rita Linhardt, a spokeswoman for Missourians to Abolish the Death Penalty. "They were really concerned on the facts of the case."
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon said this is the first time the court has ever addressed whether the claim of innocence alone, without a claim of a constitutional rights violation, was a valid argument.
"The court held that this case presented a unique set of facts, and ruled in Amrine that it can hear free-standing innocence claims," Nixon said.
Amrine was sentenced to death for the fatal stabbing of a fellow prisoner in the Missouri State Pennitentiary in Jefferson City.
During the trial, three inmates who testified against Amrine changed their minds, saying they had lied to gain special benefits from the prosecutor.
A prison guard also identified one of the men who had testified against Amrine as the murderer.
"The most credible witness was ignored in first prosecution," Columbia lawyer Stephen Wyse said.
The court said Amrine would be freed in 30 days unless the state files new murder charges against him, which isn't likely, Wyse said.
"The only credible witness left is the prison guard, who has already testified that Amrine was not the murderer," Wyse said.
Although the Amrine case was resolved, it showed that there are still several problems with the death penalty in Missouri, Linhardt said.
"For example, at trial level Amrine was given very bad counsel," Linhardt said. "Also the fact that the only evidence against Amrine was the eyewitness accounts of inmates is troubling. There are a lot of the same problems here that there were in Illinois."
Illinois has a moratorium on use of the death penalty.
Wyse said the Amrine case shows the dangers of relying solely on inmate testimony.
"One of the things it shows is that anytime the state can buy testimony, there will be situations like this," he said. "There are no safeguards against these kinds of things happening."