Ohio: Angry Lawyering And Doubts About Guilt

Ohio’s Parole Board has voted 7-0 to recommend clemency for Shawn Hawkins due to doubts about his guilt and an angry lawyer that berated his jury.  Ohio Governor John Kasich does not have to follow this recommendation, but he should.  (And you can urge him to do so.)

Hawkins’ conviction rests mainly on the testimony of an eyewitness who has changed his story several times (and was initially a suspect before being granted full immunity).  There was no murder weapon found and Hawkins had several alibi witnesses.

Upset that his client was convicted despite such a weak case, Hawkins’ lawyer lashed out at (and vaguely threatened) the jury during the sentencing phase of the trial.  He warned them (according to the Parole Board’s report) that, if they issued a sentence of death, “what comes around goes around”.  No mitigating evidence was presented, and, not surprisingly, the jury came back quickly with a sentence of death.

Such bad, angry lawyering is reason enough to commute Shawn Hawkins’ death sentence, but beyond that, this is a case, like Kevin Keith or Troy Davis, where, due to the flimsiness of the evidence, doubts about guilt continue to fester.  As one juror endorsing clemency told the Ohio Parole Board: “I wish it was more overwhelming that he was guilty.”

Or, as the Ohio Parole Board concluded in recommending that the death sentence be commuted:

“The Board is not confident in the death sentence in this case, but is also not convinced that Shawn Hawkins is innocent.  Given all of the above, the Board believes the exercise of executive clemency is warranted.”

Indeed, for Shawn Hawkins, and for many others facing execution whose cases are riddled with unresolvable doubts, granting clemency and commuting the death sentence is not only warranted. It is a necessity.

AIUSA welcomes a lively and courteous discussion that follow our Community Guidelines. Comments are not pre-screened before they post but AIUSA reserves the right to remove any comments violating our guidelines.

4 thoughts on “Ohio: Angry Lawyering And Doubts About Guilt

  1. The fight to eliminate the death penalty seems to have been going on for more than a hundred years, even though I havn't been on the planet that long. I remember being at University and listening to an American advocate give a lecture on the possible legal mechanisms for eliminating it, and I am so tired of hearing about posthumous pardons through Project Innocence.

    Even for the guilty it is cruel, inhumane and debases everyone.

  2. The fight to eliminate the death penalty seems to have been going on for more than a hundred years, even though I havn’t been on the planet that long. I remember being at University and listening to an American advocate give a lecture on the possible legal mechanisms for eliminating it, and I am so tired of hearing about posthumous pardons through Project Innocence.

    Even for the guilty it is cruel, inhumane and debases everyone.

  3. I agree that the death penalty is cruel, even for the guilty. We don't solve one crime by comitting another. We are getting sucked into the very evil, that the perpetrator got overcome by. What makes us any different than the killer, by killing in cold blood ourselves.?

  4. I agree that the death penalty is cruel, even for the guilty. We don’t solve one crime by comitting another. We are getting sucked into the very evil, that the perpetrator got overcome by. What makes us any different than the killer, by killing in cold blood ourselves.?